Brantt responded as Milgram had predicted. She was calm and cool. Once she had passed the ‘slight shock’ level she queried the continuation of the study and later refused to continue in a firm calm manner. She was not tense or nervous but straightforward, courteous in her behaviour and took total control of her actions. This implied that disobedience is a simple and rational deed.
Milgram believed that all of his participants would react this way and predicted that only 4% would reach 300 volts.
Milgram then advertised for forty men from various ages and occupations that would be paid, to take part in his study which again he claimed was to investigate punishment on learning. The participants involved varied from white collar workers, unemployed to industrial workers.
Contradictory to Milgrams trial experiment, the results were far from what he had expected. Out of forty men, twenty-six (65%) continued to administer shocks right through until the end. The participants showed distress and sought guidance from the experimenter. They were directed to continue and did so.
According to Milgram, one theoretical interpretation is that within an environment such as Yale University under such ‘laboratory’ conditions and instructions being given by an authoritative figure, this environment provided social legitimacy for their actions. The participants showed great distress, yet even after they pleaded with the onlooking scientist, his instructions to them were to continue. Hence, suggesting that they did so because they were simply obeying authority regardless of the consequences. In effect they were free from any responsibility of their actions because the blame had been passed to the authoritative figure.
When the same study was carried out but the teachers were told that they could select the level, the average shock used was only 60 volts. Three out of forty did not go beyond the lowest level, twenty-eight no higher than 75 volts, thirty-eight no higher than 150 volts and only two went up to 325 volts.
The proximity of the victim and also the location of the experimenter was an influencing factor in criticizing Milgrams explanation of the results from the original study. The closer the victim, the more unlikely the participant was to obey. The victim in the original study was behind a wall. When the experimenter was not present at the study but was giving instructions over the telephone or through a tape recording, the obedience level was reduced to 20.5%. The study was held at prestigious Yale University under conditions where the experimenter wore a white lab coat. This, as well as the payment involved, could have been very intimidating towards the participant and led them to feel obliged to continue with the shocks. The ordinary person shocked the victim out of a sense of responsibility to his duties rather than a tendency for aggression. When the study was carried out in a run down office block the obedience level dropped to 48%.
Hence suggesting that the conditions under which the experiment takes place quite clearly have drastically different results.
Baumrind (1964) claimed that the study did not generalize into real life because of the prestigious nature of the institution and the fact that the volunteers were paid to take part. But Milgram has been mostly criticized though for the ethical problems relating to the study and its participants. The question has been asked as to whether or not the stress endured by the participants can be justified by the importance of the research and the outcome? Participants were free to withdraw at anytime but this was not emphasized and the added pressure that payment was involved may have left the participants feeling obliged to continue.
As part of the design of the study, participants were deceived into the true purpose of the research. Therefore, Milgram was unable to give informed consent. Milgram defended this by saying that care was taken in the screening process and also in the debriefing of the participants.
Milgrams lack of ethical consideration evoked outrage through some Psychologists and critics and led to an ethical code of practice to be developed. Miller (1986) caused this debate by saying ‘These experiments are so vile, the intention with which they are engaged is so vile, that nothing in these experiments has any value’.
A further study was carried out by the psychologist Zimbardo (1973) whereby twenty-five participants undertook extensive psychological tests to exclude any people of unstable nature. They were offered a generous fee. A simulated prison was created in the basement of Stanford University and the eventual participants flipped a coin to determine who would play the role of Prisoners and who would play the role of Prison Guards.
The Prisoners were arrested, charged, and underwent all the usual criminal procedures. They were deloused, strip searched, and given a prison uniform which had a number on the front and back and a manacle on one ankle. The Guards were given military style uniforms, reflective sun glasses, clubs, whistles, handcuffs and keys. They were encouraged to shout, order and push around the Prisoners but physical violence was not allowed. The Guards worked eight hour shifts while the Prisoners were unaware of time of day or night.
As the Prisoners became more passive, the Guards aggression increased. The Guards went out of their way to create uncomfortable tasks for the Prisoners and their abuse intensified.
After only thirty six hours one Prisoner developed symptoms of anxiety and depression. After only six days the experiment was cancelled due to the risk of psychologically damaging the participants. The study should have been carried out over two weeks.
Zimbardo’s research has suffered from most of the same criticisms of Milgram - the ethical problems being the primary concern. Yet one theoretical explanation as to why the prisoners and guards behaved in the way that they did is that people easily respond to roles assigned to them. In this case, even more so as the environment with which they were in supported the roles to which they were assigned. But the behaviour people demonstrate in a ‘role’ is largely different to that of their normal behaviour. Again, it can be suggested that the presence of ‘payment’ could have evoked a responsibility to perform.
Hofling et al carried out a study regarding the question over obedience to authority whereby Nurses were instructed to give 20mg of the drug ‘Astrofen’ to a patient. They were told over the phone that the Doctor would sign the consent form and come and check the patient in ten minutes. Out of twenty two Nurses twenty one sought to comply. Luckily all twenty one were stopped before they could administer the drug. The maximum dose for the drug ‘Astrofen’ is only 10mg. The Nurses had been specifically instructed throughout their entire training that under no circumstances should they administer any drugs without written authority and that authenticity of the Doctor was required for each prescription. The Nurses had broken all of the fundamental rules. An explanation to this lies again in the authoritative figure. Throughout their career, the nurses are conditioned into responding to instructions from the doctors as their authority. They are a higher more powerful figure which the nurses are therefore less likely to question and any mistakes made will be a consequence of the doctor’s orders rather than their actions.
Bushman (1984) tried to explain this obedience to authority through a research study that he carried out which involved an actor standing beside a parking meter fumbling for change. Different confederates wearing three different sets of outfits, a uniform, casual attire and finally shabby clothes ordered passers by to find some change and give it to the participant fumbling for change. 70% obeyed the uniform, 50% obeyed the casual dress and even less took heed of the shabby outfitted person.
In response to being questioned afterwards, the unsuspecting passers by claimed that they ‘did so because they were told to do so’. They also claimed that they obeyed the non-uniformed confederate only because they wanted to be helpful.
Milgram went on to explain the results of his research by saying that ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Even when the destructive effects of their work become clear and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, few people have the resources needed to resist authority.
According to Milgram, the subject may fear that he appears arrogant and rude if he breaks off. A certain level of pride is attained by obeying the authoritative figure. Milgram states that the participant feel as if they are only an instrument of another person’s wishes, therefore no longer regards himself responsible for his own actions. Milgram writes that ‘it is easy to ignore responsibility when one is only an intermediate link in a chain of actions’.
Milgram also recognized that obedience to authority was closely linked to the form, shape and development of society. He claimed that a division of labour breaks society up into people carrying out narrow and very special jobs which take away the human quality of work and life. The individual only gets to see a small part of the situation thus is unable to act without some kind of overall direction. Hence they yield to authority but in doing this the individual alienates themselves from their own actions.
It has been taught to all of us from birth to respect legitimate forms of leadership and that we are not conforming if we defy figures such as parents, teachers, the law and employers. For example, when we are driving on a motorway, people often break the law by speeding but once a police car is visible, the traffic slows to the legal limit of 70 miles an hour. We are socially conditioned to obey authority and it is an ingrained habit within us all, apart from minority exceptions such as criminals and those who chose to rebel. Social equilibrium would be difficult if not impossible if it were that we disobeyed all authority. The presence of an authoritative person, such as a member of the police force is enough to discourage a fight at a football match or perhaps encourage one, should they not be present.
In conclusion, we consciously or unconsciously obey authority in all walks of life on a daily basis. The intensity of that authoritative presence can have dramatic effects on our behaviour and the level to which we obey.
Bibliography.
Introductory Psychology – Malim & Birch 1998 Macmillan Press Ltd
‘The Perils of Obedience’ – Harper’s Magazine abridged and adapted from Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram 1974
Word count 2,291