(milgram) obedience

The article describes a laboratory procedure exploring destructive obedience.
The primary task involves ordering a naive subject (S) to administer increasing electric shocks to a victim (a confederate of the experimenter, E) in a learning experiment context.
Shock generator with 30 switches ranging from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock is used.
Key dependent variable: maximum shock administered by S before refusal to continue.
Observed behaviors: 26 Ss fully obeyed commands; 14 Ss refused to continue after the victim protested.
Severe emotional tension in subjects observed: sweating, trembling, stuttering, and instances of nervous laughter and uncontrollable seizures.

Obedience is a fundamental element in social life.
Essential for functioning in communal living; only isolated individuals are free from external commands.
Historical context: References the systematic slaughter of millions (1933-1945) as a consequence of obedience.
- Inhumane actions carried out by individuals conditioned to comply with authority without questioning.
- Obedience acts as a psychological mechanism linking individual actions to larger political purposes.
Philosophical reflections:
- C. P. Snow (1961) posits that more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than in rebellion.
- Need for understanding the nature of obedience and its implications in both positive and negative actions.

Procedure designed to study obedience through commanded electric shocks.
Steps include:
- Naïve subject ordered to administer shocks during a punishment-learning task.
- The experiment examines various factors that influence obedience.
- Significant variables included the authority of the command source, its content, execution instruments, the victim, and overall social settings.

Subjects: 40 male participants, ages 20 to 50, recruited from New Haven via advertisements.
Occupations: Included postal clerks, high school teachers, salesmen, engineers, and laborers.
Subjects had diverse educational backgrounds, earning $4.50 for participation, with money guaranteed regardless of outcomes.

Experiment conducted at Yale University, lending legitimacy to the environment.
Experimenter: 31-year-old high school biology teacher, firm but courteous demeanor.
Victim: 47-year-old accountant, trained for the role, portrayed as mild-mannered.

Setup: Naive subject and victim participated in an experiment framed as studying punishment and learning.
- Subjects drew lots for roles, but the outcome was rigged; the naive subject always became the teacher.
**Shock Administration:
- Victim secured in an "electric chair" to prevent escape during shocks.
- Subjects were assured shocks were painful but without permanent tissue damage.

Learning Task: Involved reading word pairs with punishments (shocks) for incorrect responses.

The shock generator contained 30 levels ranging from 15 to 450 volts.
- Levels clearly labeled with verbal designations: Slight Shock, Moderate Shock, Strong Shock, Very Strong Shock, Extreme Intensity Shock, Danger: Severe Shock.
Upon shock administration, various indicators activated (lighting, buzzing, etc.) to enhance realism of the apparatus.

Subjects instructed to administer shocks for any incorrect responses, increasing shock level each time.
Continuous reminder of increasing shock intensity throughout administration process.

Learner provided predetermined responses: approximately three errors for each correct answer.
On reaching 300 volts, the learner protested by banging on the wall, ceasing responses thereafter.
Experimenter provided guidance, insisting on continued shock administration despite learner's apparent suffering.

Sequence of authoritative prompts to ensure continuation of shock administration if subjects hesitated:
1. "Please continue."
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."

Sessions recorded and unusual behaviors noted by additional observers.
Subjects later interviewed to assess reactions and feelings about the experiment's ethics.

Prior to actual testing, Yale psychology students predicted minimal compliance with shock administration based on the outlined task.
- Class mean prediction estimated that only 1.2% would reach the highest shock level.

26 participants obeyed completely, administering shocks to the maximum level of 450 volts, often displaying severe tension throughout.
- Subject responses indicated significant internal conflict and distress despite compliance.
- Demonstrated reluctance, sweating, trembling, and an array of overt emotional reactions.

14 participants defied the experimenter, stopping at various shock levels.
- Comments from defiant subjects indicated awareness of the moral implications of their actions.

The findings provided insights into the strength of obedience against personal morals, highlighting the conflict between authority and personal ethical standards.

The high emotional tension experienced by subjects revealed deeper psychological insights about obedience and conformity under authority pressures.

Authority of Yale University lent credibility to the experiment.
Perceived purpose of advancing knowledge about learning and punishment.
Victim appeared to have voluntarily submitted to the authority of the experiment.
Participants believed they had a responsibility to assist in the experiment.
Payment enhanced sense of obligation to cooperate despite discomfort.
Random assignment of roles minimized perceived inequity in the situation.
Ambiguity surrounding psychologists' authority created uncertainty in limits of ethical conduct.
Assurance that shocks were painful but not dangerous led to rationalization of actions.
Continuous responses from the learner up until significant shock levels blurred the lines of victim consent.

Subjects faced a direct conflict between obeying the experimenter and acknowledging the victim's suffering, with publicly visible consequences to their actions.

The Milgram experiment highlights crucial ethical considerations in psychological research, the power of authority in influencing behavior, and the need for understanding obedience in both societal and experimental contexts.

Adorno, T., et al. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper, 1950.
Arendt, H. What Was Authority? In C. J. Friedrich (Ed.), Authority. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958.
Binet, A. La Suggestibilité. Paris: Schleicher, 1900.
Buss, A. H. The Psychology of Aggression. New York: Wiley, 1961.
Cartwright, S. (Ed.) Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 1959.
Charcot, J. M. Oeuvres Completes. Paris: Bureaux du Progres Medical, 1881.