• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Milgram's obedience experiment - "take 2"

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
Apparently some american researcher decided to repeat Milgram's experiment recently to see if there'll be any change in people's responses after so many years.

BBC NEWS | Health | People 'still willing to torture'

For those who're unfamiliar with Milgram's experiment... It was first conducted in 1964 as a measurement of people's obedience to authority. In WWII people under the Nazi regime did a lot of horrifying things to prisoners. Milgram wanted to address the question of how they could be compelled to torture people. And whether these officers were simply being obedient to authority in carrying out orders.

In the experiment, the subject enters the lab with another "subject". Who's actually an unknown accomplice of the experimenter. The experimenter walks in and tell the subject a cover story. That this experiment is to look at people's abilities to learn under a stressful situation. He has a hat with two slips of paper within it and ask the subject to draw one from the hat. The person's name whose drawn will be assigned the role of the teacher. And the other person will be the student. In reality, both slips of paper contains the name of the subject. I.e. the subject is always assigned as the teacher.

The accomplice is then taken away into the "testing chamber". The experimenter then tells the subject to first recite a list of words through a telecomm system to the subject. Then ask the student to recall this list. Every time the student gives a wrong answer, he's given a electric shock. The severity of the shocks increases for every wrong answer. The shock was administered by a little box with a row of on-off switches. The switches are labelled by voltage and descriptor labels... mild shock, moderate shock, severe shock, extreme shock... the last switch was labeled "XXX" at 450V. The experimenter then has the subject experience a mild shock just to gauge its unpleasantness. The experimenter then let the subject start the "memory study".

The experiment was testing to see at what point does the subject refuse to continue administering electric shocks. Most subjects continued giving electric shocks even when the student was screaming to be let out. At the second to last shock... the student suddenly stopped responding. 65% of subject continued to delivered the 450V shock to the "unconscious" student.

Take a guess what the results of this repeat study might be? You've guessed it... After 30 years, the results were unchanged. People are still willing to give high voltage electric shocks to the student. (Only in this case, the experimenter stop the study and prevented the subject from continuing)

Some questions to ponder:
First of all, the obvious implication from this new study is that people are still (and probably will always) be sheep in presence of authority. What are your thoughts and feelings about this?

Have we made no improvements in terms of free-thinking and blind obedience for authority?

Finally, the most controversial... I've noticed that when faced with negative qualities about themselves, people's first reaction tends to be denial. Denial against the overwhelming evidence... saying those people who've participated in the study are abnormal and that they themselves would have stopped. When in reality, they'll probably have done the same as the participants. What does this say about people (other than the fact that everybody's a hypocrite)? And how can we overcome this tendency for denial?
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I remember writing a long thesis about this, the Stanford experiment, "free will", ethics and jurisprudence about 2 1/2 years ago, but can no longer find it. Argh.
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
People are people- I think that it's an engrained urge to follow whatever the authority tells us to do in general. People have followed different leaders to do horrible things throughout the history of civilization, so I don't see why there would be a reason that we would change so much in our behavior within a century.

The advent of modern religions, often preaching peace, did nothing to stop people from following thier leader to do something horrid.

The enlightenment did nothing.

The increased understanding of human behavior and psychology hasn't changed anything.

A leopard doesn't change it's spots, and humans will continue to be humans.

It's not to say that there aren't exceptions to this rule- and there always have been exceptions. Some people disagree for the sake of disagreeing, some because they think that it's wrong. This hasn't changed either.

It's just that a majority of people will tend to follow authority. :(
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
The article that you posted also neglected to mention that the "testers" were encouraged verbally by a "scientist" sitting next to them to carry on. And that with increased physical proximity to the "testee", the percentage of people who would go to the maximum voltage decreased rather dramatically.

I think apart from being a statement about obedience to authority, it's also a statement about empathy and the context of our capacity for it.

*edited to add: I am surprised that someone managed to get an ethics board to approve this experiment. I thought it possible in the 1960s, but not today.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
The article that you posted also neglected to mention that the "testers" were encouraged verbally by a "scientist" sitting next to them to carry on. And that with increased physical proximity to the "testee", the percentage of people who would go to the maximum voltage decreased rather dramatically.

I think apart from being a statement about obedience to authority, it's also a statement about empathy and the context of our capacity for it.

*edited to add: I am surprised that someone managed to get an ethics board to approve this experiment. I thought it possible in the 1960s, but not today.

The article is missing a great deal of detail... Right now I'm too lazy to hunt out the actual paper for this study though.:blush:
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
I think apart from being a statement about obedience to authority, it's also a statement about empathy and the context of our capacity for it.
Interesting... empathy with authority as the mechanism for unquestioning obedience.

*edited to add: I am surprised that someone managed to get an ethics board to approve this experiment. I thought it possible in the 1960s, but not today.
Exactly what I thought!

But, now I have a whole list of similarly interesting experiments I want to conduct! :devil: At one time, I seriously considered pursuing a PhD in social psych, concentrating in the area of nonconscious social cognition, especially as it relates to moral decision-making. Most of that goal was inspired by the Milgram study.

Here's another article:

Replicating Milgram: Most People Will Administer Shocks When Prodded By 'Authority Figure'

The full journal article is published in January's American Psychologist.
 

BerberElla

12 and a half weeks
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
2,725
MBTI Type
infp
How strange, we were discussing this briefly at my forum today, someone presented it during a discussion on the validity of the MBTI system, which pretty much introduced me to the whole thing since I hadn't known about it.

It's not surprising I guess, there are many sheep who blindly follow rules and authority figures out there in the real world, I think something like 60% were prepared to do it to the maximum voltage requested of them, and only 1 person refused to do it after a point no matter how much prodding was given.

Was really an interesting read.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The article that you posted also neglected to mention that the "testers" were encouraged verbally by a "scientist" sitting next to them to carry on. And that with increased physical proximity to the "testee", the percentage of people who would go to the maximum voltage decreased rather dramatically.

Yes, I wouldn't just call it "submission to authority" in the sense of "free will versus mindless compliance," there is a "good faith" issue in that someone who has asserted they are trustworthy and who you've agreed to help is asking you to do things that you assume on some level are still benevolent or being done for "good cause" ... regardless of the direct data/feedback you're getting from the test subject.

Which, as I type, seems remarkably similar to religious faith -- your faith has worked for you in the past, the people you've dealt with might have seemed good and trustworthy, so even when life experience is telling you something is wrong, the more deeply you're immersed in that culture and philosophy the more you're likely to still give it the benefit of the doubt and press on. Some people will bail early, others will continue to have faith in the authority figure/doctrine.

I think apart from being a statement about obedience to authority, it's also a statement about empathy and the context of our capacity for it.

There's that as well, and yes, the proximity of the tester impacts persistence... i.e., if the feedback is negative and the authority figure is not there to gently say that it's okay to continue, people will start to react to the feedback and stop doing what they were doing.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Interesting... empathy with authority as the mechanism for unquestioning obedience.

There's that as well, and yes, the proximity of the tester impacts persistence... i.e., if the feedback is negative and the authority figure is not there to gently say that it's okay to continue, people will start to react to the feedback and stop doing what they were doing.
I think part of the reason for the disparity between what people expect would happen (few people would go through with it) and the reality is down to social expectations of empathy. If we think of social expectation as the "authority figure" in a functioning society, the results make sense when it's removed and replaced with another authority figure in the form of a "scientist".

There is a variation of the experiment that I'd like to conduct, with the tester having an audience besides the "scientist", with this audience reacting with horror and disapproval and/or encouragement to be "scientific". I would like to see the effect of competing/reinforcing social expectations with the supposed "authority figure".

But, now I have a whole list of similarly interesting experiments I want to conduct! :devil: At one time, I seriously considered pursuing a PhD in social psych, concentrating in the area of nonconscious social cognition, especially as it relates to moral decision-making. Most of that goal was inspired by the Milgram study.

Here's another article:

Replicating Milgram: Most People Will Administer Shocks When Prodded By 'Authority Figure'
;) I'm very interested in social psych as well, but with a less ethical slant and more directed towards public policy-making and the judicial system. I was intrigued by the results of the Miligram and Stanford studies during my sophomore year of college; it dovetailed with my interest in comparative mythology and social roles. Joseph Campbell was once quoted as saying that it was "unreasonable" to prosecute soldiers as civilians for acts performed during war because they are "playing a role". I made the connection between this "role-playing" and "learned helplessness", where people decide that they cannot take responsibility because they have no effect on the outcome.

Yes, I wouldn't just call it "submission to authority" in the sense of "free will versus mindless compliance," there is a "good faith" issue in that someone who has asserted they are trustworthy and who you've agreed to help is asking you to do things that you assume on some level are still benevolent or being done for "good cause" ... regardless of the direct data/feedback you're getting from the test subject.
Hmm. I refer to the paragraph above. It seems that you're describing exactly that - ascribing "responsibility" to the "authority figure" on "good faith" so that the individual can avoid taking personal responsibility.

Which, as I type, seems remarkably similar to religious faith -- your faith has worked for you in the past, the people you've dealt with might have seemed good and trustworthy, so even when life experience is telling you something is wrong, the more deeply you're immersed in that culture and philosophy the more you're likely to still give it the benefit of the doubt and press on. Some people will bail early, others will continue to have faith in the authority figure/doctrine.
Funnily enough, related to a thread that I just started on faith and how malleable it is. Also, how an existing paradigm and subliminal messages can change the "data" that is taken in by a person. http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/other-psychology-topics/12051-situation-faith-god-science.html
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
There is a variation of the experiment that I'd like to conduct, with the tester having an audience besides the "scientist", with this audience reacting with horror and disapproval and/or encouragement to be "scientific". I would like to see the effect of competing/reinforcing social expectations with the supposed "authority figure".

I would like to see that also. A weak competing condition was tested:
Even when another actor entered the room and questioned what was happening, most were still prepared to continue.

;) I'm very interested in social psych as well, but with a less ethical slant and more directed towards public policy-making and the judicial system. I was intrigued by the results of the Miligram and Stanford studies during my sophomore year of college; it dovetailed with my interest in comparative mythology and social roles. Joseph Campbell was once quoted as saying that it was "unreasonable" to prosecute soldiers as civilians for acts performed during war because they are "playing a role". I made the connection between this "role-playing" and "learned helplessness", where people decide that they cannot take responsibility because they have no effect on the outcome.
Neat! It's bystander apathy even when people aren't bystanders! ;) "I don't know if it's right or not, I just work here."

Also, how an existing paradigm and subliminal messages can change the "data" that is taken in by a person.
Another strong interest of mine, relating this to both spiritual and moral paradigms. :)
 

placebo

New member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
492
MBTI Type
INFP
"The Perils of Obedience" right--this is what Milgram himself wrote.

The problem of obedience is not wholly psychological. The form and shape of society and the way it is developing have much to do with it. There was a time, perhaps, when people were able to give a fully human response to any situation because they were fully absorbed in it as human beings. But as soon as there was a division of labor things changed. Beyond a certain point, the breaking up of society into people carrying out narrow and very special jobs takes away from the human quality of work and life. A person does not get to see the whole situation but only a small part of it, and is thus unable to act without some kind of overall direction. He yields to authority but in doing so is alienated from his own actions.

The Perils of Obedience - Stanley Milgram
 

kiddykat

movin melodies
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
1,111
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4, 7
It's not surprising I guess, there are many sheep who blindly follow rules and authority figures out there in the real world, I think something like 60% were prepared to do it to the maximum voltage requested of them, and only 1 person refused to do it after a point no matter how much prodding was given.

Was really an interesting read.
Certainly. I remember having a discussion about the Milgram's test in class once. From what I recall, it turns out the few people who refused to apply to electric shocks weren't surprisingly the more self-actualized individuals.

I think it's about consciousness. The more self-actualized a person is, the more conscientious they are about their actions & how they treat others. I also don't think that we always need to meet the lower level of needs to achieve this, as in Maslow's pyramid of needs (food, safety, sex and so on). People, when put through the most trying circumstances (ex- Nelson Mandela) still maintain their composure, despite environmental conditions. I don't think monks are less self-actualized just b/c they don't have sex (that's besides the point..I'm getting a little off-track here and I'm finally getting tired lol).

Interesting thread. Sometimes situational factors are so strong that it may lead people to make decisions they normally don't do, but I also think that it's good to not make excuses for oneself, especially when it comes to other people's lives. It's like making excuses for what happened in Nazi Germany. People really do need to hold themselves accountable for what they do to others. - Self-integrity is important.
 
Top