Parts of Chapter ten explored the
interesting topic of obedience and factors affecting it. While obedience can be
beneficial to the society by avoiding a system of anarchy. Destructive
Obedience can cause a great deal of harm. The Video obeying or resisting
authority re-explored a modified version of Milgram’s experiment and compared
its results to the original experiment. The video also brought into the light
another infamous experiment: The Stanford Prison Experiment. Milgram’s experiment
was about the influence of authority figures. On the other hand, Stanford
Prison Experiment addressed the influence of power of the situation. As I
discovered these two experiments, I did experience flashbacks from my early
childhood and how I was conditioned to obey to authority figures.
In the 1960s, Psychologist Stanley Milgram staged
an experiment to investigate the possibility for ordinary individuals to take
part in destructive obedience. To the participants, the experiment was about
the role of punishment in learning. Though Milgram’s goal was to measure
participant’s obedience when ordered to dispense electric
shocks to unknown individuals. Milgram’s first study (1964) used a random
sampling of 40 men from a variety of ages and professions. The participants
received monetary compensation for their participation before the experiment
started.
During the experiment, the participants played the
role of teachers reading a list of words to learners over the intercom (no
visual contact). The learner (an actor) would try to recollect the words from his
memory. The experimenter on a lab coat and standing behind the seated teachers
would ask the participants to administer a gradual electric shock to the
learner every time a mistake is made. The procedure used an apparatus ranging
from 15 to 450 volts. The learner (an actor) started experiencing a fictive
pain and protested the electric shocks at the 300-volt mark. While the
participants expressed a discomfort continually shocking the learners. The
experimenter calmly asked the participants to carry on using the expression:
“You have no other choice, you must go on” (Milgram,
1963). Above the 315-volt mark, the learner acted as unresponsive and
refrained from answering the teachers. The instructor asked the teachers to
carry on the electric shock on an unconscious individual. Although preliminary
surveys predicted only 1% to 3% of the teachers may continue administering electric
shocks up to 450 volts. The results of Milgram’s experiment showed 65% of the
teachers continued dispensing shocks up to the 450 volts mark and none
disobeyed before the 300 volts mark.
As the results of Milgram’s experiment unveiled,
many were doubtful and questioned the sanity of the participants. Milgram
investigated further by replicating the study in 1974 and changing variables
such as the location and gender of participants. The obedience level in 1974
experiment was as high as previously stated in the 1964 experiment. Researchers
replicated Milgram’s experiment in different environments to find similar
results. The most recent modified Milgram’ experiment was led by Psychologist
Jerry Burger (2009). Burger wanted to compare the original generation of Baby Boomers
in Milgram’s experiment with the Millennials generation. For ethical reasons, Burger
selected participants least likely to experience psychological trauma during
the experiment. Burger used a random sampling of men/women participants and
adjusted the max electric shock administered to 150
volts instead of the original 450 volts. The results showed that 33.3% of men
disobeyed in Burger’s experiment while only 17.5% of men disobeyed in the
original Milgram’s experiment. While results were not conclusive, researchers
may indicate that obedience has decreased in the last five decades. Further
investigation is necessary to determine the veracity of the generational
obedience decline.
Two main Factors affected the high obedience level
in the original Milgram’s experiment. The presence of an authority figure and the
fear of bad consequences disobeying an authority. As the authority figure seemed
in charge, the participants distanced themselves from taking ownership of the
situation and simply followed orders. Another explanation for high obedience
rates was the experimenter’s timing request. “When we do not have time to think
things through, we are more susceptible to persuasive attempts” (Pastorino & Doyle Portillo, 2019). Another factor
that led to high obedience rates may be explained by the principal of Slippery
Slope.” Once, you begin to obey, it is like beginning to slide down the slope.
The farther you go, the more momentum you gain, and the harder it is to stop
obeying” (Pastorino & Doyle Portillo, 2019). “Another reason affecting
obedience was the psychological distance we feel between our actions and the
results of those actions” (Pastorino & Doyle Portillo, 2019). While the
proximity of an experimenter to teachers increased the level of obedience. The
proximity of the learner to teachers decreased the level of obedience without
eliminating it. Finally, destructive obedience behavior may be the result of
some people nature. “Data suggest that a sense of personal responsibility and
concern for others may be traits that serve to reduce our tendency to engage in
destructive obedience”. (Pastorino & Doyle Portillo, 2019).
The film Obeying
or resisting authority started with a modified
replication of Milgram’s Experiment. 22
women and 18 men were tested to observe their level of obedience. They were
asked to electrically shock a learner at the experimenter order. Participants
were introduced to the supposed learner who informed them about his hearth condition.
65% of men and 70% of Women participants agreed to administer the highest level
of shocks (150 volts). The common pattern between the men and women who went
all the way up to the 150 volts mark was the refusal to take responsibility for
the learner safety. The justification used by a participant was: “I was just
doing my job. I was doing what I was supposed to do”(ABC Productions: Basic
Instincts. (2007). Film Obeying or resisting authority:
Psychological retrospective [Video]. valenciacollege.edu).
On the
other hand, a third of the participants refused to continue shocking the
learner. Two common traits among them were: early resistance to follow the experimenter
orders and sense of responsibility towards the learner. To investigate further
how to stop participants from obeying authority figure. Milgram’s original
experiment found that when using a team of two accomplices who both refused to
continue, 90% of the participants followed their example. A replication of this
experiment showed that even with the presence of an accomplice. The decrease in
obedience toward an authority figure was minor. 63% of the participants
continued to electroshock the learner even after the accomplice expressed a
discomfort carrying the electroshocks.
The video sightsaw a real-life event that depicted
Milgram’s experiment. April 9th, 2004 at a Local McDonald’s
restaurant. The General Manager received a phone call from an alleged police
officer. The alleged cop asked the GM to strip search an underaged employee,
have the underaged employee do jumping jacks and perform sexual acts with
another adult employee. The event was caught on camera and led to a national
outcry.
Finally, the video re-explored the Stanford Prison Experiment. College students were
paid $15 a day to role play as prisoners and guards in the psychology
department basement set as a prison. Prisoners were identified by given numbers
instead of their names, wore loose smacks, no underwear and covered their heads
with a tight pantyhose cap. The guards were dressed in khaki uniforms, mirror sunglasses
and carry night sticks. This experiment showed how one guard’s behavior
influenced the behavior of the entire group. Guards started series of degrading
behavior towards prisoners. The prisoner’s resistance was met with punishments
and further degrading practices leading to serious psychological sufferance. The
experiment was ended a week earlier. While the Milgram’s
experience was about the influence of the authority figure. The Stanford Prison
Experiment addressed the influence of the power of the situation.
Upon reading about Milgram’s experiment. I did
start questioning the veracity of the events and the possibility that Baby Boomers
were a generation accustomed to executing orders. After all, they experienced
the second World War, and they were living in the Cold War Era. I was not convinced
with the facts presented by Professor Milgram and started critically
questioning each aspect of the experiment. My arguments were related to the
lack of diversity in the participants pool, the geographic locations and the
lab setting that was far from real life. However, as I was reading throughout
the chapter about factors effecting obedience. I found them convincing. The
presence of an authority figure tends to frighten us. At early age, we were
conditioned to obey to different authority figures: parents, teachers, and men
in uniforms. The level of our obedience is proportional to the authority figure
proximity.
The video presented a modern version of the
Milgram’s experiment. I was stupefied to see how a stranger man on a lab coat directed
adults to administer electric chocks to a suffering individual. It blew my mind
that the majority continued to administer electric shocks without remorse. Participants
were dissociating themselves from the learner by shifting the responsibility toward
the experimenter. They were there to execute a task in exchange of money. I am
intrigued to try a similar experiment without compensating the participants. Will
they continue to follow the experimenter orders, or will they stop earlier? I
am also interested on assigning a female experimenter. Would the participants
continue to obey? Or would they show a resistance at an early stage? As an
individualistic society. Some of us are paid to do a job without questioning
the why. We are predisposed to commit horrible acts in the name of higher hierarchy.
In this context, reviewing the horrible images from the Abu-Ghreb prison did
not surprise me at all. We have seen genocides in Nazi’s concentration camps, Srebrenica,
Rwanda, and Myanmar. Its simplistic to assume that perpetrators of genocides
were evil. However, they were either soldiers or even peasants following orders.
In Rwanda, neighbors who lived in harmony for generations turned into violent
mobs carrying machetes and slicing their neighbors’ throat.
At a personal level, Milgram’s experiment
challenged my cultural and religious background. From early childhood, I was
inoculated from obeying to authority figures blindly. My parents taught me to
obey the creator not the creatures. However, as a member of the society. I
struggled juggling between my inner instinct and the need to fit within the
society. Its easier to assume an immunity to Milgram’s experiment. Yet, life
may put us under such pressure that we may renounce our principals. I learned
to no be judgmental toward others bad choices.
I do believe that both Milgram’s and the Stanford
Prison experiments were important contributions to the understanding of human
psychology. I support the idea to explore further the obedience of human race
under authority figures. I am also concerned with the possibility of humans obeying
machines or programs that may imitate the image and voice of known authority figures.
I am an advocate of teaching Milgram’s experiment worldwide as early as
elementary school. While the course content may be different at that level
comparing to college level. It is important to make the next generation aware
when to obey and when its ok to disobey.
Obedience in general and destructive obedience in
particular are delicate subjects rarely discussed among families or in educational
institutions. In my opinion, Obedience ED is as important as Sex ED.
Word Count: 1870
"MLA Formatting and Style Guide." The
Purdue OWL Purdue U Writing Lab. Accessed 20 March. 2021.
Ellen Pastorino & Susann Doyle-Portillo. What Is Psychology?
Foundations, applications & Integration, 4th Edition, Cengage
Learning, 2019.
ABC Productions: Basic Instincts. (2007). Film Obeying
or resisting authority: Psychological retrospective [Video]. Film: Obeying or
resisting authority: Psychological retrospective: 202120 General Psychology
PSY-2012-22168 (valenciacollege.edu).Accessed 20 March. 2021.