4.6:
Milgram’s Obedience to Authority
In the now infamous and contentious series of experiments—aptly named for the Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram—research participants were supposedly recruited for a study on improving the understanding of the effects of punishment on learning.
Acting as teachers, they were told—by the experimenter, the authority—to administer presumably painful shocks to another individual—the learner—in an adjoining room when they answered a question incorrectly during a paired-associate learning test.
Participants started with small voltage amounts and escalated as the number of wrong answers continued. Despite hearing pleas of anguish from the “learner” on the other side—who, of course, was an actor—the subjects still administered what they thought were electric shocks. However, they often appeared uncomfortable. If the teacher hesitated to deliver shocks, the experimenter pushed them to continue, with statements like “The experiment requires that you continue. Please continue."
And if the learner faltered to answer, as was the case after the 300-volt shock, the lack of responding was taken as incorrect. He no longer protested after receiving a 330-volt shock, which suggested that he was physically incapable of responding any further. The demonstration proceeded until the participant absolutely refused to continue or until they had pressed the highest switch, 450-volts, three times.
In one version, Milgram reported that 65% of the participants administered the maximum voltage regardless of the torment they assumed they were inflicting, even if they initially reported that they would never do such harm.
Whether the main driving factors were fear or a desire to appear as being cooperative, participants ultimately thought that they were doing their job, and the authority figure, was responsible for what happened, given his perceived position and expertise.
Depending on the context, social influences—like commands from “above”—can make someone do something against their moral beliefs, especially if their desire to obey is more powerful than their capacity to empathize with the suffering of others.
4.6:
Milgram’s Obedience to Authority
Obedience to authority is classically demonstrated in a more famous series of social psychology experiments performed by Stanley Milgram. He was a social psychology professor at Yale who was influenced by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal. Eichmann’s defense for the atrocities he committed was that he was “just following orders.”
Milgram’s Experiments
Milgram (1963) wanted to test the validity of this defense, so he designed an experiment and initially recruited 40 men for his experiment. The volunteer participants were led to believe that they were participating in a study to improve learning and memory. The participants were told that they were to teach other students (learners) correct answers to a series of test items. The participants were shown how to use a device that they were told delivered electric shocks of different intensities to the learners. The participants were told to shock the learners if they gave a wrong answer to a test item—that the shock would help them to learn. The participants gave (or believed they gave) the learners shocks, which increased in 15-volt increments, all the way up to 450 volts. The participants did not know that the learners were confederates and that the confederates did not actually receive shocks.
In response to a string of incorrect answers from the learners, the participants obediently and repeatedly shocked them. The confederate learners cried out for help, begged the participant teachers to stop, and even complained of heart trouble. Yet, when the researcher told the participant-teachers to continue the shock, 65% of the participants continued the shock to the maximum voltage and to the point that the learner became unresponsive. What makes someone obey authority to the point of potentially causing serious harm to another person?
Several variations of the original Milgram experiment were conducted to test the boundaries of obedience. When certain features of the situation were changed, participants were less likely to continue to deliver shocks (Milgram, 1965). For example, when the setting of the experiment was moved to an office building, the percentage of participants who delivered the highest shock dropped to 48%. When the learner was in the same room as the teacher, the highest shock rate dropped to 40%. When the teachers’ and learners’ hands were touching, the highest shock rate dropped to 30%. When the researcher gave the orders by phone, the rate dropped to 23%. These variations show that when the humanity of the person being shocked was increased, obedience decreased. Similarly, when the authority of the experimenter decreased, so did obedience.
Still Relevant?
This case is still very applicable today. What does a person do if an authority figure orders something done? What if the person believes it is incorrect, or worse, unethical? In a study by Martin and Bull (2008), midwives privately filled out a questionnaire regarding best practices and expectations in delivering a baby. Then, a more senior midwife and supervisor asked the junior midwives to do something they had previously stated they were opposed to. Most of the junior midwives were obedient to authority, going against their own beliefs.
This text is adapted from OpenStax, Psychology. OpenStax CNX.
Suggested Reading
Burger, J.M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11.