Moral Development and Milgram
Running Head: MORAL DEVELOPMENT AND MILGRAM
Literature Review on the Impact of Viewing the Milgram Study and
Gender Differences on Moral Development in Business Students
Marnie Young
Algoma University
Moral Development and Milgram 2
Literature Review on the Impact of Viewing The Milgram Study and
Gender Differences on Moral Development in Business Students
Abstract
Do people put in charge of our most powerful institutions have lower levels of moral development
than others? This paper looks at whether exposure to the Milgram obedience study could
influence future managers to be more sensitive to the moral implications of their decisions.
Moral Development and Milgram 3
Literature Review on the Impact of Viewing The Milgram Study and
Gender Differences on Moral Development in Business Students
Jones & Ryan (1997) contend that human beings have a motive to be moral. This motive to be
moral can come from many sources (Jones & Ryan, 1998), including religion (Frankena, 1968),
socialization (Epstein, 1973) and cognitive development (Blasi, 1984). This motive to be moral
will vary, perhaps substantially, among human beings, but will be present to some degree in all
people. The current study focuses in on one powerful group — business people.
The Milgram experiment
In the early 1960's Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments in which naïve subjects
were told that they were to assist in an experiment involving the effects of punishment on
learning. The apparent punishments for wrong answers were increasingly painful electric shocks.
The naïve subjects received a low voltage example of the shock to make them aware of what the
punishment was supposed to feel like. The shocks were to be administered by the naive subject
(the "teacher") to an accomplice of the experimenter (the "learner"). The "learner" received no
real shocks but was instructed to get certain answers wrong so that the "teacher" was either
forced to stop with the experiment or administer increasing levels of voltage — up to and including
levels marked "Extremely High Voltage... Danger... M." The subjects were urged on by the
prompting of the researcher even when the "learner" complained about how the pain was effecting
their heart.
The actual test in Milgram's experiment was to see how obediently the subjects would follow
the researcher's commands. A surprisingly high percentage of subjects went up to the highest
Moral Development and Milgram 4
level of voltage and would keep shocking the "learner" or victim at the urging of the researcher
until told to stop. Milgram varied both the proximity of the researcher and victim. He found that
when the researcher was seated right next to the naive subject and the subject had no direct
contact with the victim (answers were received via a lighted answer board) then obedience to
researcher commands was much higher. When there was a group supporting the continuance of
the experiment and the naive subject had only an ancillary role to play (marking answer sheets as
opposed to pulling the shock switch) obedience was nearly absolute. Alternately, when the
researcher only provided the initial commands and was removed from the situation and the victim
was in close range to the naive subject and complained about the pain, the naïve subject more
frequently stopped the experiment before dangerous levels appeared to be reached.
The Milgram experiment presents disturbing implications as to how humans will obey an
authority figure even in the face of possible physical injury to another. The moral implications are
frightening when we consider how many of us are faced with authority in our everyday lives.
However, when one views the Milgram video (which includes actual footage from the
experiment) one comes away with a greater appreciation for the questioning of our obedience to
authority and answering to one's own moral dictates. The Milgram video is one that can have
great impact to one's moral development — and it prompts us as to questions about out morality.
Foundations of Morality
If we are to believe Freud, morality, is controlled by the super-ego, i.e. that part of the
personality "that incorporates parental and societal standards for morality" (Huffinan, et. al. 1991,
p. G12). This concept of morality is rather limited. It does not truly allow us to accept that there
Moral Development and Milgram 5
are standards of morality which go beyond societal standards. The notion is that whatever society
believes to be moral, is moral.
A behavioral position (Vanberg & Congelton, 1992) is that morality consists of a "general
behavioral disposition or program whose rationality is to be determined in comparison to
alternative behavioral programs" (p. 418). Morality thus consists of behavior reinforced in the
present and pliable in different settings.
From either of these two paradigms, obedience for the subjects in the Milgram experiment
could to some extent be considered moral in the circumstances. Such relativism, however, simply
aggravates the disturbing image that Milgram presents us with regarding human behavior. If it is,
in some way, possible to think that the behavior of the subjects in Milgram's experiment as moral
given the circumstances then the possibility for viewing all kinds of crimes against humanity
becomes morally acceptable. Yet since we do have standards for such crimes, the relativist notion
that the above positions might lead us to become unpalatable. As well, this view stands well at
odds with the cognitive view that once a level of moral development is reached one does go back
to a less developed level (Rest, 1971a or Kohlberg, 1976). The flexibility entertained in the
behavioral view does not exist in the cognitive view detailed below
Foundations of Cognitive Research in Morality
Piaget (1932) first noted that morality was cognitive and developmental: "that young children
make moral judgements on the basis of an act's outcome (objective responsibility), whereas older
children tend to take into account the intentions of the actor (subjective responsibility)"
(McDonald & Pak, 1996: 975). With Piaget (1965) as a foundation, Kohlberg (1984) and Colby
Moral Development and Milgram 6
& Kohlberg (1987) developed a theory of cognitive moral development that noted that "the
ethical justification and moral reasoning underlying individual's actions depend on their relative
moral development" (McDonald & Pak, 1996: 975). Kohlberg's model outlined stages of moral
development through which people go. Kohlberg (1969), developed three levels of moral
cognition, each of which is divided into two stages, for a total of six hierarchical stages
(Kohlberg, 1969). The stage of development, in turn impacts the moral decision the person
reaches. These levels and stages are summarized in Table 1.
Developments in Cognitive Research in Morality
Rest (1979a) developed a test based on Kohlberg's theory of moral development called the
Defining Issues Test (DIT). According to Jones & Hiltebeitel (1995), the DIT "requires a
participant to examine a moral dilemma, make a decision as to the appropriate action to be taken,
and indicate the importance of numerous factors that influenced the decision" (p. 419). Rest's 'P'
score indicates the percent of thinking that is at Kohlberg's post-conventional level (stages five
and six). Rest (1986) has stated, "The DIT is based on the premise that people at different points
of development interpret moral dilemmas differently, define the critical issues of the dilemmas
differently, and have intuitions about what is right and fair in a situation" (p. 196). The concept
being that the differences in the way people define the dilemmas or scenarios that Rest presents
are indications of different underlying ways that they organize their experiences. Rest (1986)
notes that, "These underlying structures of meaning are not necessarily apparent to a subject as
articulative rule systems or verbalizable philosophies - rather, they may work 'behind the scenes'
and may seem to a subject as just commonsensical and intuitively obvious" (p. 196).
Moral Development and Milgram 7
Table 1: Kohlberg's Levels of Moral Cognition / Moral Development Stages
Levels of
Stages of Moral
Moral
Development
Cognition
Level 1: Pre-
I: Self Centered The individual obeys rules to avoid punishment or gain
Conventional Ethics
reward and (i.e. self centered ethics of convenience).
Level
II: Internalized The individual has internalized shared norms of society and
Focus is on
the Individual Shared Norms recognizes the need to accommodate the interests of others.
Level 2:
Conventional
III: Ethics of
The ethics of conformity The individual seeks group
Conformity
acceptance and has group loyalty. He or she is guided by
Level
what pleases, helps or is approved by others.
Focus is on
the Group
IV: Social System The individual obeys commonly accepted role expectations,
/Conscience
civic / religious law and professional codes.
Maintenance
Level 3: Post- V: Prior Rights
Individuals are drawn to ethics of Social Contract, conduct is a result
Conventional and Social
of written consensus from due process, though individuals may con-
Level
Contract
sider changing the law for social useful purposes or maximum utility.
Focus is on
VI: Universal
The ethics of principled-centered conviction. The individual
the Inner-Self Ethical
Principles
seeks to follow unwritten global ethical principles found in
theories of justice, duties and human rights.
Adapted from Kolhberg (1969), McDonald & Pak (1996), and Abdolmohammadi,' Gabhart, & Reeves (1997).
Moral Development and Milgram 8
Thus, Rest (1986) creates a four component model as representing the abilities necessary for
moral behavior. The four components are summarized in Table 2. Note that the emphasis of
Rest's DIT is on the second component. The current study seeks to find one way to link the
second component with the third by exposure to a particular bit of educational material
(Milgram's Obedience study) .
Table 2: Rest's Components for the Competent, Morally Responsible Professional
Recognizes moral problems as they arise. A moral agent must first recognize
1
.
that there is a moral issue. Lack of such recognition will force a person to rely
Recognition
on "non-moral" criteria in making a decision.
Formulates a morally defensible course of action (focus of the DIT is here).
2
Judgment
The moral agent must next engage in some type of moral reasoning to arrive
at a moral judgment.
Does not allow moral values to be preempted by other values. The moral
3
Intent
agent next establishes moral intent and thus places moral concerns ahead of
other concerns and decides to take moral action.
4
Possesses the ego strength and social skills to implement an effective plan of action.
Behavior The moral agent finally transfers intent into moral behavior and thus overcomes the
internal and external impediments to carry out their intended moral action.
Adapted from Rest (1986), Abdolmohammadi, et al (1997) and Jones & Ryan (1998).
Morality and Obedience
Miceli argues that from Milgram's point of view, individuals perform their jobs from an
administrative, not moral outlook. Thus the ability to obediently follow the orders of an authority
figure to administer seemingly painful electrical shocks to a stranger in the context of a necessary
Moral Development and Milgram 9
task becomes acceptable, as it was in the Milgram experiment. Carroll (1987) argues that moral
considerations do not apply to business activities. Miceli (1996) points out the connection
between Milgram and morality in organizations as follows:
"... people identify with their duties, and view them as coming from higher authority. This
leads people to view the duties they are given as legitimate, and reduces the chance of
orders being questioned. Organizational etiquette usually defines some topics as
embarrassing to discuss (e.g., exploding Pintos) (Milgram, 1974). After individuals carry
out questionable acts, devaluation of the victim occurs because of the actor's tendency to
believe that the victim did something to deserve his misfortune, since... 'bad things don't
happen to good people' (Milgram, 1974; Sjoberg, Vaughan & Williams, 1984). The
feeling of responsibility for outcomes is diffused in organizations. This happens because
subordinates mentally shift responsibility from themselves to their supervisor (Kramer,
1989; Milgram, 1974)... Conscience is vital for the individual to govern his acts, but in the
organizational setting, it is secondary to the need to cede control to a superior. Social and
organizational survival requires this tendency (Milgram, 1974). Diffusion of felt
responsibility, anonymity, and acceptance of group norms are consistent with research
done on groupthink (Janis, 1982), and deindividuation (Zimbardo, 1969) (p. 706)."
Change Interventions
Again, Rest (1979a) concluded that ethical thinking can be enhanced through instruction
and subsequent studies by Hiltebeitel & Jones (1991 and 1992) demonstrated that changes in the
moral development of business students in the accounting area could occur via the introduction of
an ethics module in an accounting course. Exposure to a broad range of topics may also develop a
Moral Development and Milgram 10
student's ethical thinking. Eynon, Hill & Stevens (1997) support the idea of attracting more
people with undergraduate liberal arts degrees to the accounting profession to enhance the
profession's poor performance on the DIT (Ponemon & Glazer, 1990). This begs the question as
to whether business people may be in some way different in their moral development. This is of no
small concern when we consider the power that such people have.
Morality and Obedience in the Business Context
Generally, business people can be viewed as having lower levels of moral development
(Hiltebeitel & Jones, 1991 and 1992). They frequently view business as a game, where amoral
actions are acceptable (Real!, Bailey & Stoll, 1998). Those who have higher levels of moral
development tend to suffer from greater workplace stress (Mason & Mudrack, 1997) or may
select themselves out of the management profession (Jones & Quinn, 1995). This being the case, a
focus on studying the moral development of business people seems essential. Rest & Narvaez
(1991) found that college students exposed to ethical issues in courses tended to demonstrate
increased levels of moral development. However, shorter term interventions, have generally
showed little impact on students (see Rest, 1979a, for a summary in this area). Yet, such
interventions were not well administered (that is, as Rest, 1979a, has argued, there was a lack of
ability on the part of the teachers in these experiments, in terms of experience, to effectively
administer the change) and thus call into question what kind of impact these kinds of "short
courses or interventions may have" (p. 213).
Morality and Gender
Finally, one cannot exclude the idea that gender may have an impact on moral development.
Moral Development and Milgram 11
Depending on the degree of gender impact there may be variations as to the effectiveness of
interventions intended to improve a person's moral development. Beltramini, Peterson &
Kozmetsky (1984) found women to be more concerned about ethical issues in business than men.
Gilligan (1977 and 1982) and Gilligan, Ward, & Bardige (1988), present a wide degree of
evidence that there are gender based differences in how the sexes resolve moral conflicts. St.
Pierre, Nelson & Gabbin (1990) found that female students had significantly higher levels of moral
development.
The evidence on gender is mixed however. There are arguments that show evidence that there
is a male bias in scoring in Kohlberg moral assessments (Holstein, 1976; Rest, 1979: 120). If this
is so, some of the above results may simply be from the scoring bias rather than any real
difference. In addition, there are numerous results showing that there is little difference in the
moral development of the sexes. Jones & Gautschi (1988) found, in general, women and men do
not indicate much difference in their ethical attitudes. Kidwell, Stevens & Bethke (1987) found no
significant differences between the ethical perceptions of men and women. Sikula & Costa (1994)
found no differences among male and female college students ethical values. McNichols &
Zimmerer (1985) and Tsalikis & Ortiz-Buonafina (1990) found that men and women students had
similar values and ethical beliefs. Harris (1989), in a study of marketing professionals and Stanga
& Turpen (1991) in a study of accounting professionals found no gender differences in ethical
values.
On the whole, the results regarding gender differences present a confusing array of results.
The only thing that can be said in summarizing the relationship between gender and moral
development is that there may be some relationship between the two.
Moral Development and Milgram 12
Conclusion
Given the desire to better the moral development of professionals and the existence of
interventions to do so raises two significant questions. One, "are people less morally developed
and less likely to be effected by change interventions than others?" Gender differences might be
of principle concern in this regard.
Since much of our behavior occurs in the context of a hierarchy the interventions that make an
impact with those who are subject to obey the commands of those higher up in organizations are
of concern. Thus, a second question becomes, "can we influence the development of people such
that they may act morally in the face of authoritative pressure to do otherwise?" In the long run,
the nature of discussing morals and ethics in a classroom as well as viewing films like the Milgram
study deal with this topic.
Moral Development and Milgram 13
References
Abdolmohammadi, M. J., D. R. L. Gabhart & M. F. Reeves (1997). Ethical cognition of
business students individually and in groups. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1717-1725.
Beltramini, R., R. Peterson, and G. Kozmetsky (1984). Concerns of college students
regarding business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 3, 195-200.
Berton, L. (1995). Business students hope to cheat and prosper, A new study shows. Wall
Street Journal, (April 25) B 1.
Blasi, A. (1980). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. M. Kurtines and J. L.
Gewirtz (eds.), Morality, Moral Behavior, and Moral Development (pp. 128-139). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Carroll, A. B. (1990). Principles of business ethics: The role in decision making and an initial
consensus. Management Decision, 28 (8), 20-24.
Colby, A. and L. Kohlberg (1987). The measurement of moral judgment. Theoretical
Foundations and Research Validations and Standard Issues Manual, Vol. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory, American Psychologist, 28
(5), 404-416.
Eynon, G., N. T. Hill & K. T. Stevens (1997). Factors that influence the moral reasoning
abilities of accountants: Implications for universities and the profession. Journal of Business
Ethics, 16, 1297-1309.
Moral Development and Milgram 14
Ford, R. C. & W D. Richardson (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical
literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13: 205-221.
Frankena, W. F. (1968). Relations of morality and religion. In J. F. Childress & J. Macquarrie
(eds.), Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics (pp. 400-403). Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Gilligan, C., J. Ward, J. Taylor & B. Bardige (1988). Mapping the Moral Domain. Cambridge,
Mass: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different choice: Women's conceptions of the self and of morality.
Harvard Educational Review, 47, 481-517.
Gilligan, C. (1982). Adult development and women's development: Arrangements for a
marriage. In J. Giele (eds.), Women in the Middle Years (pp. 57-83). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Harris, J. (1989). Ethical values and decision processes of male and female business students.
Journal of Education for Business, 8, 234-238.
Henderson, V E. (1988). Can business ethics be taught?. Management Review, 77 (8), 52-54.
Hiltebeitel, K. M. & S. K. Jones (1991). Initial evidence on the impact of integrating ethics
into accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 6 (2), 262-275.
Hilebeitel, K. M. & S. K. Jones (1992). An assessment of ethics instruction in accounting
education. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 37-46.
Holstein, C. B. (1976). Irreversible, stepwise sequence in the development of moral judgment:
A longitudinal study of males and females. Child Development, 47, 51-61.
Moral Development andMilgram 15
Huffman, K., M. Vernoy, B. Williams & J. Vernoy (1991): Psychology in Action, 2 nd Ed.
Toronto: John Wiley & Sons: G12.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, T. & F. Gautschi (1988). Will the ethics of business change?: A survey of future
executives. Journal of business ethics, 7, 231-248.
Jones, S. K. & K. M. Hiltebeitel (1995). Organizational influence in a model of the moral
decision process of accountants. Journal of business ethics, 14, 417-425.
Jones, T. M. & D. P. Quinn (1995). An agent morality view of business policy. Academy of
management review, 20, 22-42.
Jones, T. M. & Ryan, L. V. (1997). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations:
An issue-contingent model. Academy of management review, 16 (2), 366-395.
Jones, T. M. & Ryan, L. V. (1998). The effect of organizational forces on individual morality:
Judgment, moral approbation, and behavior. Business ethics quarterly, 3, 431-45.
Kidwell, J., R. I. Stevens & A. Bethke (1987). Differences in ethical perceptions between male
and female managers: Myth or reality? Journal of business ethics, 6, 489-93.
Kohlberg, L. (1984) Essays in moral development, the psychology of moral development, Vol.
II. New York: Harper & Row.
Kohlberg, L. (1969) Stage and sequence: the cognitive-developmental approach to
socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.) Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480).
Chicago: Rand McNalley,.
Moral Development andMilgram 16
Kohlberg, L. (1976) Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach.
In T. Lickona (Ed.) Moral development and behavior. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Kramer, R. (1989). Criminologists and the social movement against corporate crime. Social justice,
16, 146-164.
Mason, E. S. & P. E. Mudrack (1997). Do complex moral reasoners experience greater ethical
work conflict? Journal of business ethics, 16, 1311-18.
McDonald, G. & P. C. Pak (1996). It's all fair in love, war, and business: Cognitive
philosophies in ethical decision making. Journal of business ethics, 15, 973-982.
McNichols, C. W. & T. W. Zimmer (1985). Situational ethics: An empirical study of
differentiations of student attitudes. Journal of business ethics, 4, 175-180.
Miceli, N. S. (1996). Deviant managerial behavior: Costs, outcomes and prevention. Journal
of business ethics, 15 (6), 703-710.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience to authority. Journal of abnormal and
social psychology, 67, 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child, M. Gabain, trans. New York: Free Press.
Ponemon, L. A. & D. Gabhart (1994). Ethical reasoning research in the accounting and
auditing professions. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvaez (eds.), Moral development in the professions:
Psychology and applied ethics (pp.101-119) Hilsdale, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Moral Development and Milgram 17
Ponemon, L. & A. Glazer (1990). Accounting education and ethical development: The
influence of liberal learning on students and alumni in accounting practice. Issues in accounting
education, 9, 21-34.
Reall, M. J., J. J. Bailey & S. K. Stoll (1998). Moral reasoning ]on holds during a competitive
game. Journal of business ethics, 17, 1205-1210.
Rest, J. R. (1979a). Development in Judging Moral Issues. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Rest, J. R. (1979b). Revised Manual for the Defining Issues Test. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. New York:
Praeger Publishers.
Rest, J. R. (1994). Revised Manual for the Defining Issues Test. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Rest, J. & D. Narvaez (1991). College Experience and Moral Development. In W. M.
Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development, Volume 2:
Research (pp. 229-245). Hilsdale, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Riordan, M. P. & E. K. St. Pierre (1992). The development of critical thinking. Management
Accounting: 73 (8), 63-70.
Ross, I. (1980). How lawless are big companies? Fortune (Dec. 1), 62-68.
Moral Development and Milgram 18
Schwartz, R. H., S. Kassem & D. Ludwig (1991). The role of business schools in managing the
incongruence between doing what is right and doing what it takes to get ahead Journal of Business
Ethics, 10, 465-469.
Sikula, A., & A. Costa (1994). Are Women more Ethical than Men? Journal of Business Ethics,
13, 859-871.
Sjoberg, G., T. Vaughan & N. Williams (1984). Bureaucracy as a moral issue, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 441-453.
St. Pierre, K., E.Nelson & A. Gabbin (1990). A Study of the ethical development of
accounting majors in relation to other business and nonbusiness disciplines. Accounting Educators
Journal, 8, 23-25.
Stanga, KG., & RCA. Turpen (1991). Ethical judgments on selected accounting issues: An
empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 739-747.
Tansey, L. A. (1994). Right vs. Wrong. Managing your Career, (Spring / Summer), 11-12.
Tsalikis, J., & M. Oritz-Buonafina (1990). Ethical beliefs differences of males and females.
Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 509-517.
Weber, J. (1990). Measuring the impact of teaching ethics to future managers: A review,
assessment, and recommendations', Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 183-190.
Zimbardo, P. (1969). The Human Choice: Individuation, Reason, and Order Versus
Deindividuation, Impulse and Chaos. In W. A. & D. Levine (eds.), Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation (pp. 237-308). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Moral Development and Milgram
Running Head: MORAL DEVELOPMENT AND MILGRAM
The Impact of Viewing the Milgram Study and Gender Differences on
Moral Development in Business Students
Marnie Young
Algoma University
SP
PSYC
YOU
98/99
RESERVE
Moral Development and Milgram 2
The Impact of Viewing The Milgram Study and Gender Differences on
Moral Development in Business Students
Abstract
The impact of viewing a video of Milgram's obedience study on the moral development
of male versus female business students was the research objective in this study. A test
for moral development - the Defining Issues Test - was administered to business students
before and after they viewed a videotape of Milgram's famous obedience studies. Part
one of the test was administered in week one to students in two third year business
classes. One class was shown the video in week two. Part two of the test was
administered to both classes in week four. For those that viewed Milgram and those that
did not, no significant difference occurred between part one and two of the test.
However, females scored significantly higher than males on both parts.
Moral Development and Milgram 3
The Impact of Viewing The Milgram Study and Gender Differences on
Moral Development in Business Students
Insider trading, deadly products, unsafe work environments, and an ongoing list of corporate
wrong-doings can be compiled as a stinging indictment of the decisions made by some people in
the business world (Ross, 1980). Where do poor moral judgments come from? While there has
been broad public exposure of corporate misconduct, less well known are the studies that show
some management professionals have a lower level of moral development than people in the
general population (Ponemon & Gabhart, 1994). Thus, the people put in charge of our most
powerful institutions may be less moral than other people (Miceli, 1996). In spite of this, or
perhaps because of it, nearly all business programs require some education on ethical issues. If
this component of business education is effective, the decisions these students will make when
they become business professionals should be more ethical ones. One of the pieces of this
component of business school education which may be effective in improving students moral
development — viewing the Milgram study video — is the primary focus of the current study.
In the early 1960's Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments in which naive subjects,
on the context of an experiment on learning, gave apparently increasingly painful electric shocks
to an accomplice of the experimenter. The test in the Milgram experiment was to see how
obediently the subjects would follow the researcher's commands. Milgram varied the proximity of
both the researcher and the victim to the naive subject. He found that the degree of obedience
varied with, what Milgram called, the psychological distance between the victim, the researcher as
an authority and naive subject.
Moral Development and Milgram 4
With one group of subjects Milgram created a circumstance where there was a high degree of
psychological distance from the victim and low degree of psychological distance to the researcher.
This circumstance was when the researcher was seated right next to the naive subject and the
subject had no direct contact with the victim. In this circumstance obedience to researcher
commands was higher.
With another group of subjects, Milgram created a circumstance where there was low
psychological distance from the victim and high distance to the researcher. In this circumstance
the researcher only provided the initial commands and was removed from the situation while the
victim was in close range to the naive subject and increasingly complained about the shocks. In
this circumstance the naive subject more frequently stopped the experiment before dangerous
levels appeared to be reached.
The rationale for viewing this experiment in a business ethics course is twofold. First, the
viewing develops students' sensitivity to the influence of authority in prompting them toward less
ethical acts. Second, the viewing develops the students' understanding of Milgram's notion of
psychological distance. This is important since some of the techniques learned in business schools
(like cost/benefit analysis) involve creating psychological distance between decision makers and
potential victims. As such, these techniques may result in less ethical decisions than might
otherwise be the case.
This study therefore investigates the ability to improve the moral development of university
business majors. In particular, the impact of moral development of students before and after they
have viewed Stanley Milgram's Obedience video. Rest's Defining Issues Test (DIT) is
employed to test the level of moral development of students.
Moral Development and Milgram 5
This study has three main objectives. One, to study the ethical cognition of students in
business school. Two, to discover whether moral development occurs among future business
decision makers. Three, investigate one device that may impact the moral development of future
business decision makers. This final objective will be accomplished by showing students a video
on Stanley Milgram's Obedience study (Milgram, 1963). Because the vast majority of students
will later obtain employment in hierarchical organizations, they may perform amoral acts in the
administration of their duties due to obedience to authority (Milgram, 1974; Miceli, 1996). If
individuals can be educated to question such authority this is expected to add to their moral
development.
Exposure to Milgram is the principle independent variables. The dependent variable will be the
change in the level of moral development as measured by each student's P score on the DIT. Each
group's '13 ' scores will be compared using T-tests and other relevant statistical analyses. Based on
the literature review, several results can be hypothesized and are expected.
1. The level of moral development as measured by each student's P-score in the DIT will be
higher as the term goes on. Rest (1979) concluded that ethical thinking can be enhanced through
instruction and studies by Hiltebeitel & Jones (1991 and 1992) which demonstrated that changes
in the moral development of business students in the accounting area could occur via the
introduction of an ethics module in an accounting course.
2. After students have seen the Milgram video, scores from the DIT will demonstrate a higher
level of moral development. Rest (1979) and Hiltebeitel & Jones (1991 and 1992) contend that
ethical thinking can be enhanced through instruction. Exposure to a broad range of topics may
also develop a student's ethical thinking — e.g. Eynon, Hill & Stevens (1997) support the idea of
Moral Development and Milgram 6
attracting more people with undergraduate liberal arts degrees to the accounting profession to
enhance the profession's poor performance on the DIT (Ponemon & Glazer, 1990).
3. Females will have scores from the DIT that demonstrate no significant difference in their
level or change in moral development relative to males for either the Milgram or non-Milgram
viewing group. St. Pierre, Nelson, & Gabbin(1990) found females scored significantly higher than
most business majors in the DIT. However, Jones & Gautschi (1988) found that woman and men
do not differ much in their ethical attitudes.
Method
Subjects
Subjects volunteered from a pool of 180 students in two sections of an undergraduate
Business, Ethics and Society course at Simon Fraser University. The participants range in age
from 20 to 48 years old; the average age being 23.
Materials
The Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1994) was employed in the current research. A sample from
part 1 of the test, as well as other questions asked of the subjects are included in the Appendix.
Each part of the DIT includes three scenarios that deal with moral decisions. Each scenario in the
DIT is followed by 12 statements or questions that bring up issues in the scenario. Subjects rank
how important these issues are in making their decision. The top ranked question or statement
receives four points, the second most important, three points, and so on. Each part of the DIT
has a maximum possible 29 points.
Each of the 12 statements or questions in the DIT address different stages of moral
development; of the 12, three or four address thinking at stage five or six: Kohlberg's principled
Moral Development and Milgram 7
morality stages. The 'P' score is derived by dividing the raw score for points in stages five and six
by .3 to arrive at an approximate percentage of Kohlberg's principled morality stages noted by the
subject as being most important in making his or her decision. Thus, if a subject receives 15 points
for using stage five or six in their decision then their 'P' score would be 50 ( 15 / .3 = 50 ).
Also included in each part of the DIT are several meaningless statements. If a subject picks
these phrases as important it is an indicator that they were not certain of the questions being
asked. Rest (1994) notes that subjects who score more than eight points total on meaningless
questions for both parts of the DIT should be removed from the subject pool.
Procedure
At Simon Fraser University, two sections of BUS 303: Business Ethics and Society are asked
to fill out a questionnaire and part 1 of the Defining Issues Test at the beginning of the first class
of the term. The questionnaire portion covers questions on age, sex, major, college or university
credits earned, and business or management credits and courses taken. In the last part of the
second week of class Stanley Milgram's Obedience video is shown to one of the two classes of
students. In the beginning of the fourth class both classes are asked to fill out a questionnaire and
part 2 of the Defining Issues Test. At the end of the DIT part 2 students were asked on the form if
they had seen the Milgram Obedience video. This was done to ensure that the student was
actually present the day of the video and had stayed in class to see it.
Showing the film can and does occur in the normal course of the student's education in this
course. This study simply places a test instrument near to the time such students may see the film
in order to measure its impact on moral reasoning. The only change the study makes to a subject's
normal routine is the presence of the survey. Any anxiety that might be caused by filling out a test
Moral Development and Milgram 8
on moral cognition and development is reduced in the DIT by it's use of the third person. In other
words, the scenarios ask subjects to give advice to another person facing a dilemma rather than
placing the subject in the circumstance and asking what they would do. The study involves no
deception and steps are taken to protect the subjects and restore their confidence in the psychological research by reviewing the nature and results of the study after it has been completed.
Limitations
The students from which the pool of subjects were drawn are required to take the course in
which the Milgram film was shown. Thus, their selection of this period in time (early 1999) in
which to take the course was random and thus no selection bias can be noted in this regard. Some
selection bias may result from students selecting themselves into one section of the class as
opposed to another. That students would select themselves into one section versus another may
mean that their moral development during the course would be impacted by factors other than the
viewing the Milgram video. To some degree, this is an intrinsic limitation to this type of research
(particularly given time limitations and course sections available). However, the impact of other
factors (age or number of courses taken) can be factored into the analysis via statistical controls
(i.e. recording age and credits earned) to judge their impact on student's moral development.
Results
One hundred and forty business students fully completed the DIT Part 1 in the first week
and 100 business students fully completed the DIT part two in the fourth week. Of these numbers,
83 part 1 surveys could be matched to the same person taking part 2. Three surveys had to be
discarded due to the fact that the subjects scored more than eight on meaningless questions (see
the materials section above).
Moral Development and Milgram 9
Generally, '13 ' scores improved between part 1 and part 2 of the DIT. However the change
was not significant (please see Table 1 below). There was also no significant impact for the Milgram
Video on DIT scores for the group as a whole (please see Table 1). The largest degree of change
was in the group that viewed the Milgram video. Yet even this group failed to register a significant
change in DIT scores (paired T-Test result of 0.88) between Part 1 and Part 2 of the test (please
see Figure 1 below). Thus, Hypotheses 1 and 2, for the entire test subjects group, can be rejected.
TABLE 1: Change in DIT 'P' Scores / Did Moral Development Occur in the Course
T-test for DIT
- Part 1 DIT Scores - - Part 2 DIT Scores - T
Matched Subjects
n Mean St. Dev. n Mean St. Dev. SCORE
Overall DIT Score
80 39.44
16.49
80 40.90
16.02
0.65
Did not see Milgram Video
39
39.67
15.86
39
39.82
15.01
0.05
Saw Milgram Video
41
39.22
17.26
41
41.93
17.04
0.88
FIGURE 1: Change in DII 'P' scores / Did test scores increase after viewing the Milgram Video?
Saw Milgram
Score
( n=41)
42
41
Did Not see Milgram
40
( n=39)
39
Week
1 Part 1 of the MT
2
Viewing
Milgram
4
Part 2
of the DIT
Moral Development and Milgram 10
For the time period under study, gender alone had no significant impact on students' change in
moral development as represented by their `13 ' scores (please see Table 2). Subsequent analysis
will reveal that males and females in the study did differ in some ways on their moral development
'13 ' score (please see below).
TABLE 2: Impact of gender on change in DIT `13 ' scores
T-test for DIT Matched Subjects Males
Females
- Part 1 DIT Scores - - Part 2 DIT Scores - n Mean St. Dev. n Mean St. Dev. SCORE
38
T
35.11
42 43.36
16.58
38
37.14
15.71
0.65
15.59 42 44.31
15.70
0.23
While there was no significant change in 'P' scores in the paired T-tests between part 1 and 2
of the DIT for either men or women, there were significant gender differences in '13 ' scores.
Women scored significantly higher in both part 1 and 2 of the DIT (please see Table 3 for the
results of the T-tests, * p<.05) however.
TABLE 3: Impact of gender on DIT 'P' scores
T-test for DIT
Males
Matched Subjects
n
DIT Part 1 Score
Females
n
Mean
St. Dev.
Mean
St. Dev. SCORE
38
35.11
16.57
42
43.36
15.58
2.29*
DIT Part 2 Score
38
37.14
15.71
42
44.31
15.70
2.04*
Overall DIT Score
38
36.12
12.95
42
43.83
11.59
2.80*
Moral Development and Milgram 11
When both gender and the impact of Milgram are considered the initial results show no
significant changes between '1 3 ' scores in the DIT part 1 versus DIT part 2 (see Table 4 for the
results of the paired T-tests). However, in looking at a figure of the scores (see Figure 2) one can
see that males that did not view Milgram diverged substantially from those that did see the video.
TABLE 4: Impact of Milgram and gender on change in DIT '1 3 ' scores
T-test for DIT
- Part 1 DIT Scores -
- Part 2 DIT Scores -
Mean
St. Dev. SCORE
Matched Subjects
n
Males who saw the video
12
35.17
12.59
12
30.67
14.42
-0.73
Males who did not see video
26
35.08
18.35
26
40.12
15.63
1.43
Females who saw the video
27
41.67
16.94
27
43.89
13.62
0.56
Females who did not see video
15
46.40
12.76
15
45.07
19.40
-0.23
Mean
St. Dev.
n
T
Was the male divergence in scores significant? To answer this question, two "change"
variable were calculated for each subject. The first variable, "absolute change" in `1 3 ' score was
derived by subtracting the subject's 'P' score in part 2 of the DIT from their score in part 1 of the
DIT. A second variable, "relative change in 'P' score was derived by taking the subject's
"absolute change in '13 ' score" and dividing it by the part 1 DIT `13 ' score. Though the two
variables significantly correlate (.86), only the latter variable tells us what the subject's change in
'P' score was relative to their initial score. "Relative change" variables were thus employed in a
T-test to examine whether viewing Milgram had any impact.
Moral Development and Milgram 12
FIGURE 2: Change in DIT 'P' Scores by Gender / Before and After Viewing the WElgram Video
Score
47 -
Females (No Milgram)
Females (Milgram)
44 41 -
Males (No Milgram)
38 35 32 -
Males (Milgram)
29 eek
1
Part 1
of the DIT
2
Viewing
Milgram
3
Part 2
of the DIT
4
Results of tests on "Relative change" variables (shown in Table 5, * p<.05) demonstrate that
males who did not see the Milgram video were significantly different from those that did see it.
However, the direction was the opposite of what was expected: males who saw the video falling
somewhat and those who did not, improved.
TABLE 5: Change in DIT `13 ' scores: Males vs. females
T-test for DIT
Saw Milgram
Did Not See Milgram
T
Matched Subjects
n
Relative % Change in P Score: Overall
39
24.94
99.62
41
36.81
98.20
0.54
Relative % Change in P Score: Females
27
36.14 113.62
15
3.97
50.81
1.26
Relative % Change in P Score: Males
12
-0.24
26
Mean
St. Dev.
52.63
n
Mean
St. Dev. SCORE
55.76 113.85
-2.07*
Moral Development and Milgram 13
Thus, the contention in hypothesis 3 that males and females would not differ significantly in
DIT `13 ' scores must also be rejected. Not only did males and females differ, males' showed an
unexpected response to Milgram.
Finally, in comparing the results here with other groups in the population (as noted in Rest,
1994) we find that overall these students ranked about equal with adults in the general population
(see Figure 3). Females tended to rank above business grad students however and the males
ranked between adults in general and senior high school students.
FIGURE 3: Moral development DIT `P' Scores in Context
M oral development D IT 'P' Scores
P h H.& .Po li.S ci
grad .students
Liberal Sem inarians
59.8
Law students
M edical students
50.2
Practicing
Physicians
149.2
Staff N urses
46.3
77:
T his study's
F em ales
a
a
g
o
43.8
usiness Grad.
students
42.7
College students
generally
42.3
r
T his study's
Students
J 40.2
e
A dults in general
40.0
T his study's M ales
7
Senior H igh
Students
36.1
31.8
Prison Inmates
_123.5
Junior H igh
Students
Institutionalized
delinquents
18.9
0
10
20
30
Scores
40
50
60
70
Moral Development and Milgram 14
Discussion
We can conclude from the above analysis that viewing the Milgram video, offers little if any
benefit in aiding moral development. It may be argued that viewing Milgram may actually have a
negative impact on moral development in males.
To a great degree the results here are consistent with Rest (1979). He noted that short courses
in ethics tend to have little impact on moral development. However, inconsistent with Rest
(1994), this study found gender differences along the lines of those found by St. Pierre, et al
(1990): females demonstrating higher DIT `13 ' scores.
What insights can we draw from these conclusions? First, as Rest (1979) has noted, significant
changes in moral development may take time. More time between DIT part 1 and 2 may have
been needed to draw a clearer result. Second, management and moral development should go
hand-in-hand. By introducing ethics earlier and providing instruction in it more often, better
progress may be made in raising business students' moral values. If moral development does occur
over longer periods of time then waiting to introduce the topic until 3t d year is likely a poor idea.
One final insight we might draw is from the fact that Milgram was introduced to these
students with little discussion before and after. The result for males seems to be, what one might
call a desensitizing effect toward harm. The impact of Milgram was to actually reduce moral
development or make the subject matter in the Milgram film less ethically critical. If this is the
case, Milgram, as well as possibly all cases or viewing of experimental research, needs to be
presented with the utmost care regarding the context of the work and lessons students should
draw from it. Without such careful instruction, ethics education may serve more to desensitize
students to moral issues than raise their level of moral development.
Moral Development and Milgram 15
References
Eynon, G., N. T. Hill & K. T. Stevens (1997). Factors that influence the moral
reasoning abilities of accountants: Implications for universities and the profession.
Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1297-1309.
Hiltebeitel, K. M. & S. K. Jones (1991). Initial evidence on the impact of integrating
ethics into accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 6 (2), 262-275.
Hilebeitel, K. M. & S. K. Jones (1992). An assessment of ethics instruction in
accounting education. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 37-46.
Jones, T. & F. Gautschi (1988), Will the ethics of business change?: A survey of
future executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 231-248.
Jones, T. M. & D. P. Quinn (1995). An agent morality view of business policy.
Academy of Management Review, 20, 22-42.
Miceli, N. S. (1996). Deviant managerial behavior: Costs, outcomes and prevention.
Journal of Business Ethics, 15 (6), 703-710.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience to authority. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row.
Moral Development and Milgram 16
Ponemon, L. A. & D. Gabhart (1994). Ethical reasoning research in the accounting
and auditing professions. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvaez (eds.), Moral Development in the
Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics (pp. 101-119). Hilsdale, N.J.: Laurence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ponemon, L. & A. Glazer (1990). Accounting education and ethical development:
The influence of liberal learning on students and alumni in accounting practice. Issues in
Accounting Education, 10, 21-34.
Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in Judging Moral Issues. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Rest, J. R. (1994). Revised Manual for the Definin Issues Test. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Ross, I. (1980). How lawless are big companies? Fortune (Dec. 1), 62-68.
St. Pierre, K., E.Nelson & A. Gabbin (1990). A Study of the ethical development of
accounting majors in relation to other business and nonbusiness disciplines. Accounting
Educators Journal, 8, 23-25.
Weber, J. (1990). Measuring the impact of teaching ethics to future managers: A
review, assessment, and recommendations, Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 183-190.
Moral Development and Milgram 17
Appendix: DIT Part 1
This questionnaire is designed to study how students think about problems in business and
society. Different people often have different opinions about questions of right and wrong.
There are no "right" answers as there would be for a math problem, we would just like you to
tell us what you think of several stories. Your answers to the questionnaire will be anonymous.
Age
Major Class Bus. 303 Day
Gender
Male
Female Area of Concentration
Eve
ID (Day & Month of Mother's birthday) 1 Total college/university credits earned up to and including 98-3 Total business credits earned up to and including 98-3 1This to match this part of the questionnaire with the second part to be taken in three weeks while still
maintaining your anonymity. You may use some other identifier but be sure to write down in an accessible
place so that you remember it. This information will be destroyed immediately after the research is
completed.
Moral Development and Milgram 18
Instructions for Part A: (Sample Question)
In this questionnaire you will be asked to give your opinions about several stories.
The following one is an example:
Sandy Smith has been thinking about buying a car. Sandy has a spouse and two small children.
The family's income is average. This car will be the family's only car. It will be used mostly to get to work
and drive around town but may be used to take some vacation trips. In trying to decide what car to buy,
Sandy realized that there were a lot of questions to consider below are some of them:
If you were Sandy Smith, how important would each of these questions be in deciding what car to buy.
On the right side check one of the spaces by each statement. That is, if you think statement #1 is not
important in making a decision about buying a car, check the space to the right.
Importance:
Great Much Some Little
No
1.Whether the car dealer was in the same block as Sandy lives.
(Note: in this example the person answering the questionnaire
did not think this was important in making the decision.)
2. Would a used car be more economical than a new one in the
long run. (Note: a check was put in the far left space to indicate
the opinion that this is an important issue in making a decision
about buying a car.)
3. Whether the color of the vehicle was Sandy's favorite color
blue.
4. Whether the displacement was at least 2.2 liters. (Note: if you
are insure about what is meant by "displacement," then mark it
"no importance.")
5. Would a large, roomy station wagon be better than a compact
car.
6. Whether the front muffler bearings were differential. (Note: if a
statement sounds like gibberish or nonsense to you, then mark it
"no importance').
Instructions for Part B: (Sample Question)
From the list of questions above, choose the most important one of the whole group. Put the
number of the most important on the top line below. Do likewise for your 2 nd, 3 rd and 4th most
important question on the top line below. (Note: that the top choices in this case will come from
the statements that were checked on the far right side — statements #2 and #5 were thought to be
very important. In deciding what is the most important, a person would re-read #2 and #5, then pick
one of them as the most important, then put the other one as second most important, and so on.)
Most important . . . 5Second most important 2
Third most important 3Fourth most important
Moral Development and Milgram 19
HEINZ AND THE DRUG
A woman was near death from cancer. There was one drug doctors thought might save her. The
drug was expensive to make, but the druggist charged ten times what it cost. He paid $200 for
the raw materials and charged $2,000. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he
knew to borrow the money but could only come up with $1,000: half the cost. He approached the
druggist and told him that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it to him for less or let him
pay half now / half later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I intend to make a
profit from it." So Heinz got desperate and began to think about breaking into the man's store to
steel the drug for his wife.
Should Heinz steal the drug? (check one)
He should steal it
I cant decide
Importance:
He should not steal it.
Great Much Some Little
1. Whether a community's laws are going to be upheld.
2. Isn't it only natural for a loving husband to care so much for
his wife that he'd steal?
3. Is Heinz willing to risk getting shot as a burglar or going to jail
for the chance that stealing the drug might help?
4. Whether Heinz is a professional wrestler, or has considerable influence with professional wrestlers.
5. Whether Heinz is stealing the drug for himself or doing this
for someone else.
6. Whether the researchers rights to his invention have to be
respected.
7. Whether the essence of living is more encompassing than
the termination of dying, socially and individually.
8. Mat values are going to be the basis for governing how
people act towards each other.
I
9. Whether the researcher is going to be allowed to hide behind
a worthless law which only protects the rich anyhow.
10.Whether the law in this case is getting in the way of the most
basic claim of any member of society.
tavra......01.1■10■16a9
11.Whether the researcher deserves to be robbed for being so
greedy and cruel.
12. Would stealing in such a case bring about more total good
for the whole society or not?
■■■■•■■■■slimerarn
From the list of 12 statements or questions above, select the four most important:
Most important .
Third most important Second most important
Fourth most important