One explanation could be that the subjects had agreed to cooperate and once the experiment began they found it difficult to go back on their word. The experiment started rather innocently and then gradually escalates. Once the subject began to give the shocks and raise the shock levels, there is no longer a stopping point. It easier to continue than admit their own misjudgement. This is known as the slippery slope.
The most common response from Milgram’s participants was “I was only doing as I was told” as if he no choice. The subject continued to do as he was told as if he had no free will. This is called the agentic state. The experimenter was wearing a white laboratory coat that indicated his position of authority. The fact that someone is wearing a uniform is enough for him or her to be obeyed. A study by Bickman (1974) was conducted on the streets of New York. They approached people and ordered them to either pick up a paper bag or give a stranger a coin. Half the experimenters wore neat street clothes and the other half wore a guard’s uniform. Fewer than 40% obeyed the civilians but 90% obeyed the guard. It seem that a lot of people will obey, so long as they perceive that command comes from a legitimate power. French and Raven (1959)
In other variations of the Milgram experiment the proximity of the teacher to the learner was discovered to be a factor reducing obedience. When the teacher and learner were in the same room the level of obedience dropped to 40%. Clearly it became too uncomfortable to see the effects of their obedience. When the learner is in remote proximity levels of obedience increase. This may be due to the dehumanisation of the learner. The proximity of the experimenter was also found to be crucial. When the experimenter delivered his verbal prompts by telephone the obedience level dropped to 20%
Another explanation for high obedience could be the diffusing of responsibility. Many subjects raised the issue of responsibility should the learner be harmed. Although the experimenter did not always discuss this, when he did say, “I’m responsible”, participants showed visible relief. When participants were told they were responsible obedience was sharply reduced.
Milgram’s experiments have been widely criticised. One of his strongest critics was Baumrind (1964), who argued that the rights and feelings of the participants had been violated. Furthermore inadequate measures were taken to protect the participants from undue stress and emotional conflict. Milgram countered that an experimenter cannot know what the results are going to be before the experiment begins.
A further ethical issue concerns deception. The subjects were clearly lied to about the purpose of the experiment and the true identity of the “learner” was withheld. They believed he was another genuine participant. (Vitelli 1988) In his defence Milgram pointed out that, after learning about the deception the subjects were debriefed and 84% said they were glad to have taken part.
Another criticism was that Milgram’s sample was unrepresentative. However, Milgram studied 636 participants, representing a cross section of New Haven’s population. Milgram did conclude that those subjects who continued to administer the shocks up to 450 volts were more likely to see the learner as being responsible than themselves. This indicates that they had a strong authoritarian personality. This includes a strong respect for authority and a less advanced level of moral development.
In addition, researchers have argued that although the experiments had high internal validity, his results would not prevail in other circumstances. The laboratory was artificial and therefore lacks external validity.
Because the Milgram experiments have been criticised as artificial (Orne and Holland 1968), studies have been conducted in more ordinary conditions. Nurses have been studied to see if they obey an order that would violate hospital rules. (Hofling et al 1968) The subject (a nurse) received a phone call from a doctor that asked her to give an unsafe dose of medicine to a patient. 21 out of 22 nurses proceeded to administer the medicine although it was clearly a violation of hospital rules. The nurses were acting within their roles and presumably in the patient’s best interest. The nurses involved did not question the orders since it is in their role to obey doctors.
Should we be asking how we would behave if we are put into a position of authority ourselves? Zimbardo et al (1973) explored this question in his famous prison simulation. The study assumes that the subjects acted on the stereotypes of that particular role. The guards acted aggressively simply because they drew on their expectations and experience of the role of a guard. A guard is someone who supposed to show power in an aggressive manner. Secondly the environment facilitates the role-playing. The mock prison produced an aggressive environment. Therefore facilitating the brutal behaviour of the guards.
One of the reasons that experiments on obedience obtain such high compliance is that the social pressures are directed at the lone individual. If the subject were not alone would they be less obedient? A recent experiment examined the possibility that groups of participants are more likely to be motivated into rebellion against authority.
Gamson, Fireman and Rytina (1982) recruited citizens from a non-university community to spend two hours in a local motel assisting in research into group standards. They set up a fictitious company, Manufactures Human Relations Consultants (MHRC). Nine subjects were told that legal cases sometimes hinged on community standards. The MHRC coordinator (a confederate) then explained a pending court case.
A service station manager was suing an oil company because it had not renewed his franchise. The oil company’s defence was that he was living with a woman to whom he was not married and therefore violated the moral standards of the community. They maintained that he would not be able to keep up good community relations with his customers.
The participant’s were then asked to discuss the case while being videotaped. After a general discussion the subjects were given a short break. They were then asked to go on tape and voice an opinion as if they were offended by the service station manager’s lifestyle. They were then given another break in which the participants had time to talk to each other. After the filming was complete they were asked to sign an affidavit giving MHRC the right to use the tapes in court.
As MHRC intentions dawned on them most people became highly angry and rebellious.
Only one of thirty-three groups came close to going through with the entire scenario. They said thing like “ can you assure us that the court will understand that these aren’t our real opinions” All the groups refused to sign the affidavit.
Compared to the Milgram study, obedience to authority seems to have been undermined. In the initial questionnaires 90% of the subjects saw nothing wrong with an unmarried man and woman living together. The subjects were given ample opportunity to share their opinions and suspicions about the motives of the MHRC Company. Lone subjects in the Milgram studies had none of these opportunities to share information. Therefore the study concluded that we are more likely to rebel if we are in groups. Several years before this study a social historian noted that “disobedience when it is not criminally but morally motivated is always a collective act”(Walzer 1970,p4)
In conclusion, it seems we are socialized to obey from an early age. Obedience may be an ingrained habit that is difficult to resist. Once Milgram’s participants had begun the experiment it seems that it gradually escalated. They found themselves on the slippery slope and it was difficult for them to extricate themselves from it. It also seems that our social roles, such as the nurses in the Hofling experiment and the guards in the Zimbardo simulation, seem to produce high levels of obedience. It seems that we underestimate personal dispositional factors and the role of situational factors in contributing to behaviour – fundamental attribution error.
In addition, when the subjects perceived that they were responsible for what was happening obedience was reduced. The diffusion of responsibility is crucial. The perception that the experimenter has legitimate authority induces an agentic state and contributes to high levels of obedience.
Furthermore, proximity, remote authority, peer rebellion and changing the institutional context all reduced obedience in various degrees. However, as noted by Gramson et al we are most likely to rebel when we feel that social pressure and peer pressure is strong.
Finally, it is easier for us to accept that a war criminal like Eichmann was inhuman than accept that ordinary people can be destructively obedient. Many great crimes have been committed in the name of obedience. Genocide tends to occur under conditions created by authorisation and dehumanisation. Milgram believed that educating people about the dangers of blind obedience and encouraging them to question authority could reduce obedience.
Bibliography
Atkinson R Et Al (1996) Hilgard’s Introductory Psychology (United States) Harcourt Brace College Publishers
Brain C (2000) Psychology Approaches And Methods (United Kingdom) Nelson Thornes Ltd
Gross R (2000) Psychology The Science Of Mind And Behaviour Third Edition (1996) (London) Hodder And Stoughton Ltd
McIlveen R (1999) Aspects Of Psychology Social Influence (London) Hodder And Stoughton Ltd
