Milgram Study

[milgram-experiment]

Discussion Questions to Revisit

1) What are some real life examples of the behavior displayed in the Milgram experiment? How does this affect your opinion of humans? What are some examples that may be prevalent to your life?1

2) Do you think the Milgram experiment was humane enough to be acceptable? How could it have been made more humane while still upholding the integrity of the results?

3) What gives someone authority? How did Milgram establish who had authority and who didn’t? What does this say about the nature of authority?

[milgram-experiment]

Fill this out after going through the blog please :D

[milgram-experiment]

Alternative Interpretation

From this observation, Dr. Burger also realizes that this experiment can be used to answer the question “what does it take to resist authority?”. We know that humans are social creatures, and conformity is an important factor to being apart of society. We see that the subjects of the experiment continue to follow the orders of the authority, despite their nervousness. However a variation of the experiment shows that when others begin to resist the orders of authority, the subject is more likely to resist the authority as well. Though the original experiment cannot be recreated due to stricter guidelines and the emotional strain it puts on the subjects, there was a lot to be learned from the experiment.

Looking at the results of the Milgram experiment, many interpret the results as the horrifying truth of human nature. Many see it as the willingness of the vast majority to administer deadly actions on others against their morals when authority calls for it. This experiment’s results were then used to answer the question to whether or not the Nazi soldiers should be held accountable for their actions when they were just “following orders”.

Recently, another psychologist, Dr. Jerry Burger, recreated (with some major changes) Milgram’s experiment. The results of his experiment remained the same as the original experiment, however how he interpreted the results were different from how the original was perceived. Instead of interpreting it as people’s obedience in the face of authority, Dr. Burger does not believe that obedience was a factor in the results of the experiment. He believes that the results show how the controlled environment of the experiment causes the vulnerability of a person. This is due to the other person in the room, the expert. We see the person complying to their demands most of the time though feeling nervous about it, since the “learner” seems to be in extreme distress as the voltage goes up. Dr. Burger talks of how this happens due to how little information is given to the person (subject of the experiment), and since there is such little time to think about whether or not one should continue and the calm demeanor of the “expert (scientist)” telling one to continue with it, they nervously continue on.  

Source: Segura, L. (2009, February 12). Questioning Authority: A Rethinking of the         Infamous Milgram Experiments. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from http://www.alternet.org/story/126492/questioning_authority:_a_rethinking_of_the_infamous_milgram_experiments

[milgram-experiment]

The Experiment Itself

In essence, the Milgram Experiment studied how everyday people respond to commands from authority. The experiment was set up as a trial testing memory and the respondents were offered a cash incentive just for showing up. There were 40 respondents, all male, and they were introduced to an “experimenter” and a “subject”, but they were not told that both people were confederates, and they themselves were the subjects. The responded was deemed the “teacher” while the fake subject was deemed the “learner”. The learner was strapped to a chair with electrodes attached, and was then moved out of sight of the teacher. At this point the preparation was finished and the experiment began (Explorable, 2008).

The teacher was instructed by the experimenter to administer a simple test to the learner, and for every wrong answer a shock of increasing intensity was given. With every shock, a prerecorded message was played simulating varying degrees of pain. The teacher was led to believe that these cries were coming from the learner in real time, while in reality the shocks had no effect. As the experiment progressed, the recordings grew distressed, but the experimenter sternly instructed the teacher to continue (Explorable, 2008).

The results of the experiment were drastically different than Milgram’s initial hypothesis. The final results showed that around 65% of participants were willing to go to the maximum level, a whopping 62-64% higher than Milgram’s predicted statistic. Despite the /shocking/ difference between results and hypothesis, Milgram attributes the willingness to eschew morality in the face of authority to a deeply rooted innate tendency to respect and follow authority (Explorable, 2008).

Milgram Experiment - Will People Do Anything If Ordered?. (2016). Explorable.com. Retrieved 10 April 2016, from https://explorable.com/stanley-milgram-experiment

[milgram-experiment]

Supplemental video to introduce Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience

Additional second video to provide more context and understanding on the study here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTZKp8nOhVU

Tenzin Wangdak

[milgram-experiment]

Resisting Authority - a Hero of the Milgram Study

Joseph Dimow was a participant in the 1961 Milgram Experiment at Yale University. This article is an account of his experiences, and gives insight to his thought process throughout the experiment. Dimow is a part of the group of individuals who went against the authority figures present in the experiment when prompted to shock the person in the “learner’s” role. (New World Encyclopedia, 2014)

Right off the bat, Dimow retells how he found the drawing of the straws to be slightly suspicious, as he never saw the straw’s lengths, and was told that he was to administer the shocks. At this point, he began to think that he was being duped from the very beginning.

During the entire process, Dimow continuously asked questions regarding the procedure and the reason for the study. He even went as far as to relate the purpose of the study to examine how the Nazis of Germany were so compliant with Hitler’s ruling, which he later learns is exactly one of the reasons why the researchers were completing the study. (Dimow, 2004)

(Out of the Fog, 2015)

In the study, Dimow acted contrary to how many others individuals acted by refusing the administer any shocks to the “learner” after he heard screams coming from the learner. Even though the authority figure prompted him to, Dimow claimed he just could not go further as the learner’s screams increased. (New World Encyclopedia, 2014)

At this point, the authority figure told Dimow that if he did not continue administering shocks, that the experiment would be ruined, and thus ordered Dimow to continue. Even then, Dimow refused, and even offered to give the five dollars back to the researchers. (Dimow, 2004) Dimow then told the man that he believed the study was more so about how far the individuals would go in the presence of authority, rather than studying the effect of shocks on a learner.

By the end of the questioning period, the researcher explained what the Milgram study was really about, and ended up confirming all of Dimow’s suspicions.

At the end of the article, Dimow states that a follow up questionnaire was sent out, asking if subjects were glad, neutral, or upset about participating in the study, with the statistics coming out to 84%, 15%, and 1.3% respectively. Dimow mentions that he most likely responded as a neutral subject.  (Dimow, 2004)

Dimow credits his views to his family’s socialist viewpoint that he grew up with. Due to this stance, he says that he grew up learning that what authorities thought was right/wrong often differed from what individuals of society thought were moral and immoral. (Dimow, 2004) In his life, Dimow was a staff member of the Communist Party, thus adding to his unorthodox ideas of society an authority.

Tenzin Wangdak

Citations

Dimow, J. (2004, January). Jewish Currents: Resisting Authority: A Personal Account of the Milgram Obedience Experiments. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://www.jewishcurrents.org/2004-jan-dimow.htm

New World Encyclopedia. (2014, October 27). Stanley Milgram. Retrieved April 5, 2016, from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Stanley_Milgram

Out of the Fog. (2015). STANLEY MILGRAM'S FAKE "SHOCK MACHINE" [Digital image]. Retrieved April 9, 2016, from http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5592c762e4b0e05c804124c3/t/5660ef41e4b0a5d9e2661962/1449193282036/

[milgram-experiment]

Alternative Interpretation

While Stanley Milgram’s study of conformity is very well known, it is not above criticism or fault. If anything, because the results are so widely regarded, it should be scrutinized even more. It certainly shows us something about the nature and extent of human conformity, but the study itself has some flaws, as does the way Milgram presented it.

The issue of ethics and emotional stress on the participants of this study is often brought up, but a closer look shows more problems within the research itself. While looking through old records of the experiment in the Yale library, it was discovered that the supervisors (those who told the participants to shock the “victim”) went off script (Romm, 2015). This presents an issue with the standardization of the study, as well as a problem with the control of the variables. With the experiment varying, even slightly, each time, it is hard to tell what actually impacted the participants even if the outcome is relatively similar. On top of this, some of the participants knew that the experiment was a hoax even before participating (Romm, 2015). This could create biases within the volunteers, and skew the results. This also messes with the standardization as well. It causes similar issues as the deviation from the script.

However, with slightly altered versions of this experiment being recreated in modern times, it is hard to deny that Milgram’s conclusions are completely wrong. That does not mean that they should be taken at face value. Some critics also claim that Milgram presented his experiment for the shock value rather than for pure science. Stephen Reicher describes Milgram’s studies as “fantastic little pieces of theater” (Romm, 2015).

With Milgram’s classification of participants as either disobedient or obedient, he may have missed some of the complexity of the issue he was trying to face. For example, people in Milgram’s experiment protested even when they continued to follow orders. Should that be taken into account? Milgram believed that a person’s behavior was very dependent on their situation because of the willingness to conform, but it is important to take into account the possibility that people can learn to break out of that and “learn to disobey toxic orders” (Romm, 2015).

Milgram’s experiment shows some valid aspects of human behavior, but fails to take a deep enough look at what it shows. It is true that there are some explanations given such as diversion of responsibility and trust in authority, but something beyond this is needed. Milgram’s results are not as much contested as the interpretation. The world is not black and white, with strict conformity or pure nonconformity, and the explanations for everywhere in between are nuanced. No satisfactory answer has been found, but Milgram’s experiment is a starting point.

Citations

Romm, C. (2015, January 28). Retrieved April 05, 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-experiments/384913/

[milgram-experiment]

Real World Example

      In Stanley Milgram's experiment, an authority figure managed to convince regular people to 'shock' confederates with life threatening electric shocks. With his experiment, Milgram showed the world that evil doesn't necessarily come from a person's personality but from their need to follow orders and listen to authority. In many, if not all, societies, populations are taught that disobeying authority is one of the worst things someone can do. 

         However, according to Milgram's study, people can often take following orders too far. This can be seen in the abuse of power by police officers. In an article from the New York Times, "A Black Police Officer's Fight Against the N.Y.P.D." by Saki Knafo, Edwin Raymond describes life as a NYPD officer going against the grain. In this interview, Raymond describes being being targeted by supervisors and commanders for acting against orders that forced police officers to increase the amount of  “numerical goals for arrests and court summonses each month.” (Knafo, 2016). The particular reason behind Raymond’s refusal is based in how officers were expected to increase those numbers: Arrest and ticket people for minor offenses.

        That order led to an increase of stop and frisks, arrests for petty crime, and amount of tickets handed out. However, this increase did not occur everywhere. In fact, they mainly occurred in minority neighborhoods against minorities. Latino’s and African Americans were the main target of unlawful searches and arrests to boost the numbers that police officer’s needed to fill quotas set by their bosses. Raymond, later in the article, spoke about why many other officers do not act against their orders: “‘It’s not only black and Hispanic officers,’ he said. ‘The rank and file generally, they’re utterly demoralized and critical of the department. But they don’t have a voice,’ he added. ‘‘If they speak out, they get crushed.’”. Often, officers who do speak out against the wrongdoings of their peers are moved to lower positions, fired, or pressured to quit, all of these things done by higher ups in the force. As a result, police officers fall prey to social influence and toxic authority and perpetuate the continuous wronging of minorities and innocent people.

        There is also the diffusion of responsibility in the police ranks. Police officers continue to arrest people for petty crimes because they’ll be punished by their bosses if they don’t, their bosses continue to harass those police officers because they’ll be punished by their bosses if they don’t, and so on and so forth. Does this mean that diffusion of responsibility and conformity play a part in adhering authority? Of course. In fact, if those in authority told people that they would be held accountable for their actions, many people would rethink their choices. Also, if there were more than 1 person trying to fight against the higher ups, many other people would be willing make another choice.

         People in authority recognize the things that can control people and in turn make them do their bidding by messing with those things (eg: someone’s livelihood). However, there are also people who blindly follow authority because they truly believe that what the authorities say is true. This can be seen in World War 2 in Nazi Germany. In total, not all orders from authority is bad, not everyone who follows orders from authority are bad, and not every person in authority is bad. It is important to note, though, that when one of those three things are bad it can color the results terribly.

RaeVonne Barnes

                                                 Citations

Knafo, S. (2016, February 18). A Black Police Officer’s Fight Against the N.Y.P.D.    Retrieved April 07, 2016, from    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/magazine/a-black-police-officers-    fight-against-the-nypd.ht ml?_r=0 An article about the struggle of a black  police officer against unlawful orders from the N.Y.P.D. Used to support    claim about conformity in the face of authority.