On Tuesday Professor Pecenco spoke to the class about the Milgram
experiments as an example of sociological research. As the class seemed
intrigued by the experiments I thought it might be helpful to sum up the
research and list some links for further reading on the subject.
Milgram Obedience Studies
The Milgram Experiment
Image courtesy Wapcaplet,
accessed here
Yale University Psychiatrist Stanley Milgram initially structured his
experiments with the intention of proving that the majority of American’s would
not cave to pressure and cause harm to another human being in ordered to
do so. His original predictions were that only 1% of participants would
administer a potentially lethal shock.
The Milgram Obedience study could perhaps be better termed obedience
studies,
as there were multiple versions of the study. The most commonly reported
of these studies was conducted in 1961, and included 40 participants, all
men. In this first experiment 26 of the 40 men were willing to administer
a potentially lethal shock.
There were 19 variations to the experiment (conducted by Milgram and other
psychologists) included location of the population being tested (inner city v.
Yale University), location and dress of the “experimenter” (lab coat, non-lab
coat, in the room, out of the room issuing orders over an intercom), the
presence of other “teachers” (who were accomplices in the experiment), the
gender of the participants and proximity of the teacher to the learner.
Proximity of the teacher to the learner was the only variation that produced
significantly different levels of obedience. The closer the learner was
to the teacher the less likely the teacher was to administer high level shocks
[1][1].
The Milgram
experiments were and are quite controversial. Not only are there ethical
difficulties with the Milgram experiments, the interpretation and validity of
the experiments are questioned. The Milgram experiments were conducted
prior to the advent of Institutional Review Boards that oversee experimental
ethics. The repercussions for participants of both the Milgram
Experiments and the Stanford Prison Study were significant and grave.
These participants suffered psychological harm that at times stayed with them
decades later. Milgram did not always appropriately debrief his
participants[2][2]
and some did not know that the shocks were not real for months or even years
after participating in the experiment.
Links for Further Reading on Milgram:
The
Man Who Shocked The World, NPR Interview
Interview
with Gina Perry, Author of “Behind the Shock Machine”
A
partial transcript of a participant that refused to administer shocks beyond
150v
Wikipedia
entry on Milgram Obedience Studies
Stanford Prison Study
The Stanford Prison study was conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo.
The experiment was conducted upon 24 male Stanford University students.
These students volunteered for the prison study. They were randomly
assigned to the role of either guard or prisoner. The assignment was
randomly chosen by coin toss – the participants witnessed the random assignment
(and thus were aware that their assignment as guard or prisoner was the result
of pure random chance). A mock prison was set up in the basement of
the Stanford Psychology building and participants were slated to stay in the
“prison” living their roles for 7-14 days. The experiment was ended after
6 days due to the level of authoritarianism and abuse that the guards fell into
in the study.
The experiment is remarkable for the way it displays the power of roles in
shaping the actions and attitudes of individuals. The experiment is
another example of the power of authority – those participants slated as
prisoners fell into the prisoner role and obeyed the authority of the
experimenters and “guards.” Lastly, the experiment is also another
example of everyday people committed acts of violence.
The Stanford Prison
study has also been analyzed for the ethical difficulties it presents.
The participants in the study suffered severe psychological consequences. The
validity of the study has also been challenged (though the power of roles has
largely been upheld in the psychological and sociological literature). A
2007 article by Carnahan
T & McFarland
S. indicated that the personalities of individuals who respond to an
advertisement for a “prison study” might be significantly different from
individuals who respond to general calls for psychological studies[3][1].
Further Studies
The Asch Conformity Experiment (lines on chalkboard) 1951
http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/p/conformity.htm
http://psyc604.stasson.org/Asch1956.pdf
Sherif, 1936
http://www.intropsych.com/ch15_social/sherif_1936_group_norms_and_conformity.html
Bickman (1974)
Banality of Evil
Studies on Obedience are often used and interpreted to talk about what
Hannah Arendt called "The Banality of Evil" - the idea that evil is a
possibility within all of us. Another interpretation of these studies,
and the historical events they are often used to interpret, is that authority
aids in the transference of responsibility.
Some further
resources on the idea of “evil”
Real Life Examples:
AbuGrabe prisoner abuse
McDonalds manager who undressed employee
"Group think"
Discussion Questions:
Many of these studies are Social Psychology based studies. This means
they are interested in investigating obedience, conformity and role taking from
an individual point of view. How might we consider these studies using
the sociological imagination?
What cultural structures exist that might contribute to the way that people
behaved in these studies and examples?
What sorts of Social Structures make use of authority? Does obedience
to authority have potential positive effects in society?
These studies support the idea that many people will submit to
authority even if what they are asked to do is unethical. Should the
manager in the Fast Food restaurant example be free from prosecution because
they thought they were following police instructions?
The question of ethics and authority can be particularly tricky when we
consider the actions of members of the military. For soldiers in combat
situations the willingness to follow orders without question can be the
difference between life and death - for themselves and for their fellow
soldiers. However, the public has objected when certain actions by soldiers
come to light. One example listed above is the issue in Abu Grabe prison,
but there were similar concerns regarding soldiers in the Vietnam War. Do
soldiers who were "just following orders" have a valid excuse for
immoral behavior?
[3][1]
Pers Soc Psychol Bull.
2007 May;33(5):603-14. Epub 2007 Apr 17., accessed at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17440210
