The Nature of Obedience
Why do we obey?
Why, sometimes, do we choose not to?
Stanley Milgram’s study of
Obedience
• Result of a fascination with the
phenomenon of concentration camps and
the atrocities committed therein
• Wanted to see how far the average person
would go when asked to inflict pain on
another, by an ‘authority figure’
Milgram’s experiment: the basics
Milgram thought that:
“Obedience is as basic an
element in the structure of
social life as one can point to.
Some system of authority is a
requirement of all communal
living….”
Some of the 53000 participants in a
Nazi rally, Nuremberg 1937
Milgram’s experiment: the
procedure:
• Set up as if to study
the effects of
punishment on
learning
• The ‘learner’ was to
receive electric shocks
for every question he
got wrong
• The ‘teacher’ gave
them
Milgram’s experiment:
The Learner:
• The ‘learner’ was a 47 year old likable actor
(this was not known to the subjects)
• The ‘shocks’(they were not real) were given
in 15 volt intervals up to 450 volts (enough
to kill!)
• Each time the learner made a mistake he
was given a more powerful shock
•
1.
2.
3.
4.
The learner began to protest as the shocks
got more severe . This happened in stages:
Up to 180 volts he made noises
At 180 volts he shouted that he could bear
the pain no longer
At 300 volts he screamed and complained
his heart was troubling him
At 315 volts he refused to continue, after
which he made no other sound no matter
how many volts were given
Milgram’s experiment: The
‘teachers’:
• Originally these were 40 males between 20
and 50 from a range of occupations
• They were paid $4.50 for turning up
• They often found the procedure stressful –
most protested and wanted to stop. If they
hesitated the experimenter gave one of 4
standard ‘prods’ to encourage them to
continue
• These were:
1. “Please continue or please go on”
2. “The experiment requires that you
continue”
3. “It is absolutely essential that you
continue”
4. “You have no other choice, you must go
on”
The findings….
• Milgram found that
65% (two thirds) of
the ‘teachers’
delivered the
maximum 450 volts –
enough to kill!
• He also found that
100% (all) delivered at
least 300 volts!
Milgram’s conclusions ….
•
1.
2.
3.
He concluded that obedience is due to 4 things:
The “situational setting” (where it takes place)
The status of the experimenter (their ‘power’)
The ‘pressure’ they were able to place on the
individual
4. People should be aware of the dangers of blind
obedience
• He did not believe that the obedience shown in
concentration camps was due to “deviant
personalities”
Milgram’s variations..
To test his theory, Milgram carried
out a number of ‘variations
Increasing the distance between
the teacher and the experimenter
Description:
The orders were given by telephone, rather
than face to face.
• 20.5% obeyed
Remote Feedback
Description:
Where victim was not seen or heard
• 66% obeyed:
Proximity
Description
Where victim was only one metre away from
the teacher
• 40% 0beyed
Touch proximity
Description:
Where the victim was only one metre away
from the teacher and had their hand forced
onto the shockplate
• 30% obeyed
Reducing the authority of the
experimenter
Description:
Where the experimenter was not a scientist,
but a member of the public.
• 20% obeyed
Making the location less credible:
Description:
Where the experiment was carried out in a
seedy, run-down office, rather than a
prestigious University.
• 48% obeyed
Refusal to conform
Description:
Where another confederate (teacher) refused
to give shocks
• 10% obeyed
Other studies in support..
• Milgram’s theory was carefully reviewed
and tested by others, who found similar
results.
• These studies were conducted in ‘real’
environments, so the would have more
“External (Ecological) Validity”
Hofling (1966)
• He conducted a study where nurses were
instructed by a ‘Dr. Smith’ to give a patient
20 mg of Astroten (above the maximum)
• Although no written authority was received,
and despite the fact that the nurses did not
know if Dr. Smith was a real doctor, 21 of
the 22 nurses obeyed.
Evaluation of Hofling
In support:
• Raises important questions about the ways
hospitals are run (nature of authority)
• The study has external (ecological) validity
Problems:
•
•
•
•
Does not follow ethical guidelines
Nurses were deceived
There was no informed consent
Nurses did not have the right to withdraw
Bickman(1974)
• Explored the role of uniforms when the
public were asked to perform tasks (pick up
a bag, stand on the other side of a bus stop
etc)
• Obedience rates differed with different
uniforms. More obedience when dressed as
a guard, rather than a milkman etc.
Evaluation of Bickman
In support:
• Has external (ecological) validity
Problems:
• Participants were deceived
• There was no informed consent
*How ‘good’ were these
experiments?
And are the results “valid” ?
* Just read….don’t write on blank:
Evaluating Milgram (overall)
•
Milgram’s study can be criticised on a
number of fronts:
1. How ‘Valid’ the methods were that he
used
2. How the findings would transfer to real
life
3. How ethical it was to put subjects through
this ordeal
VALIDITY : Orne and Holland
(1968)
Criticised Milgram’s study on two levels:
1. Lack of internal validity - because of the
situation, participants would know this
was an official experiment and that no one
would really be hurt. So, as an experiment,
did it prove what Milgram said it did?
• BUT Milgram challenged this – he said
that the participants DID believe it which
WOULD make it valid!
2. External validity – to what extent can the results
be ‘generalised’ to real life. Because it happened
in a lab, would it happen in the street?
• Hofling’s nurse study WOULD suggest that it
would generalise
• BUT Rank and Jacobson (75) – asked nurses to
carry out an irregular order but 16/18 REFUSED
• This is because a) the drug was familiar to them –
Valium -AND they were allowed to consult with
peers
• I.e. it is THIS study which is even MORE realistic
and disagrees with Milgram’s findings
3. The obedience alibi
Mandel (98) suggests that Milgram’s research
is NOT supported by real life events
Proximity of the victim
• When Major Wilhelm Trapp (Jozefow
mass killing of Jews)gave orders to kill
Jews by shooting them only a small
minority took up the offer to be assigned
other duties if they felt uncomfortable
• This is despite the fact that they were in
close proximity to the victims
Proximity of authority figure
• At the Jezefow massacre – most of the
killers were ALONE with the victims
• I.e. NOT in presence of their superiors but
they still went through with it
Victim’s suffering
• In Jezefow they seemed to “enjoy” the
opportunity to exert power
• In Milgram’s the overwhelming majority
were extremely uncomfortable with it.
Ethical Issues in Obedience
Research
• One major critic of Milgram was Baumrind
(1964) who believed that Milgram’s
approach was unethical
• BUT Zimbardo claims that it is WHAT
Milgram discovered that has lead to
hostility of his research NOT HOW he
discovered it.
Participants should not be
deceived:
Milgram’s reply
Baumrind’s concerns
• Without the deception
• Participants were
the study couldn't have
deceived on two
taken place and it did
counts.
reveal really surprising
1. They were told the
results
study was on the
• Participants were
effects of punishment
debriefed and 84%
2. They believed they
said they were glad
were giving real
they had taken part
electric shocks
• 74% said they had
learned something
Participants should give informed
consent:
Baumrind’s concerns
• Participants hadn't
given their consent to
take part in a study on
obedience
Milgram’s reply
• Whilst this was the
case, other writers
such as Rosnow
argued that the study
helped people review
their value systems
and made them aware
of the dangers of
obedience
Participants should be allowed to
withdraw from the study:
Baumrind’s concerns
• The “prods” from the
experimenter made
them feel they had no
choice and could not
leave
Milgram’s reply
• By persuading
participants to remain,
he was demonstrating
the power of the
scientific establishment
and authority figures
and he argued that they
were not physically
detained and some did
actually leave
Participants should be protected
from psychological harm:
Milgram’s reply
Baumrind’s concerns
• The participants were fully
• Participants
debriefed and a psychiatric
experienced a lack of
examination one year after
self esteem, dignity
the study revealed no sign
and trust in Authority
of psychological damage
and it was a stressful
• They were only involved in
experience for some
“momentary excitement”
like a horror film
• Darley (92) –administering of shocks in
Milgram’s experiment may activate a dormant
aspect of the personality
• Ie would feel more able and more motivated to
repeat the actions
• Supported by Lifton (86) –physicians in the
Nazi death camps started out as ordinary
people but became killing machines
• I.e. their personalities had altered as a
consequence of the activities they were asked
to perform