The Milgram Study came out before there were Institutional Review Boards, which are essentially the “ethics police” of academic research. The Milgram Study was actually one of the experiments that brought about a change in the need for researchers to submit to a higher board on whether or not their experiments were ethical or not. Fortunately today, this study would not be allowed as it stands. Several changes in the procedure would have to be completed in order for someone to re-create this study.
Back in the early 2000’s, a Californian University Professor did in fact re-create this study but made changes in order to pass the institutional review boards approval. For example, he changed the max voltage of shocks to be only 150 volts, as opposed to Milgram’s max of 450 volts! Not surprisingly, this replication study found very similar results to the original research. Most participants (70%) did go all the way up to the 150 volt max and had to be stopped at that point.
These experiments demonstrate the power of authority to be followed, whether it coincides with people’s personal morals and ideals. Unfortunately, those in power know this all too well and use it to their advantage. Hopefully as people continue to evolve, maybe in another 50 years, this study can be replicated with very different results.
The fact that you ask the question is interesting, especially considering the original logic behind conducting the experiments. After the world discovered what occurred in WWII Germany (i.e. the Holocaust), people were shocked that those charged with war crimes all stated they were "following orders." The basic assumption, at least initially, was that there was something unique about the German people that would lead them to blindly obey such orders. Milgram's study showed that this potential to obey authority so intently was, in fact, not a German trait. Instead it was something that most people are likely to do.
Thus, the notion that there was something unique about these participants in the original study (or the world) begs the question of whether or not there was something unique about these people that resulted in them obeying authority so blindly - all the way up to an "incapacitated" participant.
Luckily for us, other researchers have actually tested this notion (with a few modifications to the original experimental design). The tricky part of these studies was actually getting them approved. With the advent of Internal Review Boards (IRB) and the acknowledgement that some early medical and psychological research studies were at best mildly stressful and at worst deadly to unknowing/vulnerable participants - many thought a replication would never occur. These researchers (see links below) were able to make modifications to ensure no harm came to participants and found that the original phenomenon still largely occurs; even in our technology advanced, innovative world people will still obey the commands of an authority figure.
The reason behind these results are simple - context plays a large role in shaping behavior. In a situation where an authority figure is telling you to obey an order and informs you that you are not personally responsible for the outcome, you rationalize that you must obey the order, the authority figure knows what they are talking about more than you do, and you no longer have responsibility for what occurs. If something does occur...you were just doing your job.
The lesson learned here should be to recognize those environmental characteristics (as well as how strong they are) and fight the urge to fall into the trap should you find yourself in a similar situation. In fact, one modification to the these recent studies was to exclude psychology students. The idea was that these students would be so familiar with the original study that the effect of the environment and the pressure to obey would be almost non-existent (and not truly representative of the population).
Links:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314081558.htm
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/replicating-milgram
Believe it or not, researchers have actually replicated the Milgram experiment pretty recently! In 2009, Jerry M. Burger was granted institutional review board approval to replicate the study, and in 2017, researchers from the University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Poland also replicated it. When Psychological research presents a compelling idea, replication studies are essential to either validate or invalidate the results. Both projects reflect similar results to the original Milgram Obedience Study.
Stanley Milgram publicized his findings in 1963, over half a century ago. The results at the time were shocking to the American public. His study aimed to discover the extent of human obedience to authority (law enforcement, medical professionals, etc.). Today, Milgram's experiments are still considered controversial. Many participants were exposed to severe and unexpected psychological trauma when they were led to believe that they had caused serious harm to another person.
Milgram attributed the obedient behavior to two theories.
a). Theory of Conformism; when a person is dealing with something that they aren't familiar with and don't know what to do, they refer to their established group. The group provides the individual with a model of behavior to follow in unknown situations. As a result the individual conforms with the group for security and safety. An example of group conformity could be anything from shoe-wearing to sitting quietly in a library. Groups follow a hierarchy of roles. A lost individual can look to an expert on a matter of which they are unsure.
b) Agentic State Theory; When a person is obedient to someone else, they become the instrument of that person's will. My mom told me set the table for dinner. When I did, I became the instrument of her will rather than my own. When a person complies to another's will, they may no longer view themselves as the driving instrument of the action. This causes self-perceived displacement from personal responsibility to the action.
Sadly, replication studies still demonstrate a shockingly high rate of participant obedience, nearly 90%. Even after half a decade, human nature appears to remain unchanged. Contemporary replication studies still yield high rates of obedience despite unique and unexpected experimental conditions such as
Using a puppy in place of a human learner.
Using a computer avatar in place of a human learner and informing participants
Staging fake study participant refusal in front of actual study participants.
Even after such changes, the results still mirror Milgram's original data. Poor puppies!
However, these new replication studies have limitations. For example, the Polish study only utilizes 80 participants. Here, less than 100 people are used to represent a population of 38 million. And before Mr. Burger obtained his IRB approval to conduct further research, his preliminary results were used as content for a television show. The entertainment factor may have biased his findings.
A full blown, multicultural replication study with specialized sample selection (a way to ensure that participants are selected randomly) that spans over an extended period of time might yield findings that we don't expect. For example, participants, when given a second chance, may realize that they aren't strictly beholden to the will of a higher authority. Human beings are remarkable agents of change.
Sources
Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men(pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh, PA:Carnegie Press.
Nissani, Moti (1990). "A Cognitive Reinterpretation of Stanley Milgram's Observations on Obedience to Authority". American Psychologist. 45: 1384– 1385. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.12.1384
Society for Personality and Social Psychology. (2017, March 15). Conducting the Milgram experiment in Poland, psychologists show people still obey [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.spsp.org/news-center/press- releases/milgram-poland-obey
Results Of The Original Study
Milgram's 1965 study sought to determine the conditions under which a subject would obey or refuse to obey the commands of an authority figure such as a researcher conducting a scientific study, specifically, when the subject was being told to hurt another person. Milgram notes that while subjects may be "obeying" the researcher or "conforming", it can't be said that they are "cooperating" because that tends to imply that the subjects agree with the research being conducted, which they may not. Therefore, the terms "obey" and "disobey" relate purely to the subjects actions.
Subjects are told that the research is about learning, specifically to study the effect of punishment on memory. The study uses the subject as the "teacher" and an accomplice as the "learner". The learner has to answer questions but is punished by the teacher with an electric shock for an incorrect answer, although there is no actual electric shock being administered. The true object of the study is to see the amount of voltage the teacher is willing to use to shock the learner, when told to use an increasingly more painful amount of electricity by the researcher. The learner acts as though he is really in increasingly severe pain, begging for the experiment to be stopped. Any refusal by the subject to continue the experiment is met with increasingly stronger orders and arguments from the researcher.
It was found that if the learner, or "victim", did not protest in any way that the teacher was aware of, 66% of subjects would continue shocking the victim until they reached the maximum level of "450 volts" even though it was marked "Extreme Danger" and the victim pounded on the wall at 300 volts. If the subject could hear the pleading of the victim, then only 62.5% would continue until the end; if the victim was in the same room and could be seen and heard, only 40% would continue until the end; if the teacher had to physically force the hand of the victim onto a shock plate when they started refusing because of the pain, then only 30% would complete the experiment. It should also be said that all subjects reported being completely convinced of the authenticity of the accomplice's pain.
Repeating the Study Today
More than 53 years after the original study, Americans live in a society of increasing access to information. This by itself would clearly change many of the subjects' perceived relationship to the researcher in terms of knowledge- they may not recognize the researcher as having access to any more information than they have, and may see themselves as being just as knowledgeable. It would be less likely that subjects would obey a researcher just because the researcher claims to be a scientist- news stories regarding corrupt and immoral authority figures are today all too common. There have also been changes in the legal protections and options of individuals who are harmed by institutions or corporations in any way, which would make it harder to get subjects in the U.S. to believe the experiment could be real. The fact that this study has already been done means that subjects may already have knowledge of it, especially with internet access to almost everything. Anyone who has taken a few psychology or sociology classes has probably heard of this experiment- at the very least, these people would have to be filtered out in order to replicate the original study. Milgram also mentions that perhaps the culture at the time did not provide many role models for disobedience, whereas today such models are common- it is often considered preferable to be disobedient and to refuse to follow the "rules".
However, some of the findings of the original researchers still remain true to this day. Milgram found that the physical presence and proximity of the authority figure was strongly correlated with obedience to administer the shocks, which should continue to hold true today. Individuals who served in the military or other organizations where they were expected to follow orders without questioning them would likely be as compliant as they were in 1965, although this was not explicitly studied at the time. Milgram's personal subjective observations were that good people repeatedly bowed to the pressure to continue the experiment even with its' increasingly severe effects, and certainly many of the good people of today's America would still be just as vulnerable. Milgram concluded that even the influence of a free and democratic society cannot be counted on to create citizens that will refuse to commit brutal and inhumane treatment of others at the direction of a malicious authority figure. Has the influence of American society changed significantly from the 1960's? Although today's culture demands that we treat minorities and women with equality and fairness, do those standards apply to others who are just like us?
These facts and observations, taken as a whole, push the balance to favor different results if the experiment was conducted again today. In particular, the increased recognition by society of the rights of individuals, access to information, and greater rejection of malicious authority figures, would mean that participants would be less likely to complete the experiment.
The results would most likely be similar, if not yield a higher percentage. When Stanley Milgram performed this experiment in the 1960's, computerized gaming and social media were not a factor in the lives of the subjects. The 60's were a much simpler time. Communication with a person face to face or over the telephone was all people had. The only other communication was a television set. And yet, a surprising 65% of the "teachers" gave a 450 volt electrical shock to the student. A real 450 volt shock would potentially kill a person.
Today, in 2018, virtual reality has made society less sensitive to the effects of an experiment such as this. In a study by Dr. Elias Aboujaoude, Stanford Psychiatrist and author of the book, Virtually You, The Dangers of the E-Personality, mentioned the immersion of 3-D technology will change society and people's social lives. He states, “To some degree, this has already happened with the Internet and social media, where we can have a ‘full life’ [online] that can be quite removed from our own.”
Essentially, what is happening is society is becoming less sensitive to the needs and concerns of one another as they participate in a type of 'escape-ism' from reality through social media, gaming, and other computerized virtual realities.
Milgram’s famous experiment concluded that people are willing to inflict pain or suffering on others if instructed to do so by an authority figure.
Unfortunately, I wholeheartedly believe the results of Milgram’s experiment would reach the same conclusion if the experiment were conducted today.
The reasons are simple: human nature throughout the course of history changes very little, if at all. The cyclical nature of history itself demonstrates this to be true.
For example, the torture endured by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in the early 2000s shows the callousness of those in power. It is quite possible that a few of the soldiers who participated in the heinous abuse of prisoners were hesitant to do so at first, but they went along with it because superior officers were engaging in the behavior.
Consider gang-like organizations in which lower level members commit heinous acts of violence at the behest of the organization’s leadership.
People are all too willing to abandon their moral conscience when assured that what they are doing is permissible.
No comments:
Post a Comment