Stanley Milgram studied. Milgram's controversial experiment, which made subjects look like executioners. The subject refused to obey a person of his rank

Last update: 08/12/2018

The dangers of obedience - that's what Stanley Milgram called his experiment. And obedience to authority can be very dangerous indeed, since sometimes it goes against even universal human values.

“The social psychology of this century shows us the main lesson: it is often not his characteristics that determine a person’s actions, but the situation in which he finds himself” - Stanley Milgram, 1974

If a person in a position of authority ordered you to give another person a 400-volt electric shock, would you agree to do so? Most people will answer such a question with an adamant “no.” But Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experimental studies on obedience in the 1960s that showed surprising results.

Background to the Milgram experiment

Milgram began conducting his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of World War II criminal Adolf Eichmann began. “How could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were simply carrying out tasks? Were they all accomplices? - Milgram posed this question in his report “Obedience to Authority.”

Milgram experiment technique

The participants in the experiment were forty men who were recruited from newspaper advertisements. They were each offered a payment of $4.50.
Milgram developed a very realistic and frightening-looking generator equipped with 15 V division buttons. The voltage started at 30 V and ended at 450 V. Most of the switches were labeled “minor shock,” “moderate shock,” and “danger: severe shock.” The final couple of buttons were simply labeled with the ominous “XXX.”

The participants were divided by “lot” into “teachers” and “students”; during the experiment they were separated by a wall. The “teacher” had to shock the “student” every time he said an incorrect answer. While the participant assumed that he was actually shocking the “student,” no shocks actually occurred, and the “student” was actually an ally of the experiment, feigning shock.

During the experiment, the participant heard the “student’s” pleas for mercy, requests to be released, and complaints about a bad heart. As soon as the current level reached 300 volts, the “student” desperately banged on the wall and demanded release. After which he became quiet and stopped answering questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and press the next button to receive the shock.

Most of the participants asked the experimenter if they should continue? But the experimenter gave them a series of commands requiring action:

"Please continue";
“The experiment requires you to continue”;
“It is absolutely necessary that you continue”;
“You have no other choice, you must continue.”

Results of Milgram's experiment

The level of electrical voltage that the participant was willing to deliver was used as a measure of obedience.
How far do you think most of the participants went?

When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale students, they guessed that no more than three out of a hundred participants would give the maximum shock. In fact, 65% of participants gave the maximum.

Of the 40 participants in the experiment, 26 delivered the maximum shock level, and only 14 stopped before. It is important to note that many subjects became extremely anxious, agitated, and angry with the experimenter. Milgram later clarified that 84% were happy about their participation, and only 1% regretted participating in the experiment.

Discussion of the Milgram experiment

While Milgram's research raised serious questions about the ethics of using human subjects in this type of psychological experiment, its results remained consistent throughout subsequent research. Thomas Blass (1999) continued with similar experiments and found that Milgram's results persisted.

Why did most participants perform sadistic acts according to authoritative instructions? According to Milgram, there are many situational factors that may explain this high level of obedience:

the physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance;
the fact that the study was conducted by Yale University, a reputable educational institution, led most participants to believe that the experiment should be safe;
the choice of teacher and student status seemed random;
participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert;
Participants were assured that electric shocks were painful but not dangerous.

Milgram's later experiments indicated that the presence of resistant participants dramatically increased levels of obedience. When other people refused to comply with the experimenter's orders, 36 of 40 participants refused to go to the maximum current level.

“Ordinary people, simply doing their job, and without much hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become clear, but they are asked to continue actions that are inconsistent with fundamental standards of ethics, few people find the strength to resist authority” (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram's experiment became a classic in psychology, demonstrating the dangers of obedience. While this experiment suggested that situational variables had a stronger influence than personality factors in determining obedience, other psychologists argue that obedience occurs more under the influence of a combination of external and internal factors, such as personal beliefs and personality traits.

Watch the video of Stanley Milgram's experiment “Obedience.”

Have something to say? Leave a comment!.

In 1960-1963, American psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted some of the most important experiments in social psychology.

In general, the experiment looked like this. An experimenter asked an ordinary person to assist in conducting a study on the effects of punishment on learning and memory. The assistant (“teacher”) had to read words to the subject (“student”) to memorize. If the “student” answered incorrectly, then the “teacher” had to punish him with an electric shock. Each subsequent punishment was greater than the previous one. For this, a panel with 30 switches from 15 volts to 450 volts, in 15 volt increments, was used.

Above each switch the corresponding voltage is written, in addition, groups of switches are labeled with explanatory phrases: “Weak shock”, “Moderate shock”, “Strong shock”, “Very strong shock”, “Intense shock”, “Extremely intense shock”, “ Danger: hard to bear blow." The last two switches are graphically isolated and labeled "XXX".

The “student” who was electrocuted was a fake actor. There were no electric shocks, of course. The real subject of the study was the “teacher.” Stanley Milgram wanted to find out how far people are willing to go in violence against another person if an authority (in this case, a research scientist) demands it.

There were no penalties for refusing to participate in the experiment. The “teachers” were in no way dependent on the experimenter. That is, the participants in the experiment could simply up and leave without any consequences for themselves. The authority of the experimenter lay only in the fact that the assistants themselves, in their own eyes, endowed him with sufficient power to obey him.

The actor playing the student consistently showed increasing distress from the increasing force of the electric shocks. Over time, he began to demand to stop the experiment and showed heartbreaking pain. At a certain moment he pretended to lose consciousness.

results

The results of the experiment are shocking: two thirds of the subjects turned out to be “obedient.” They were ready to inflict enormous pain on the “student” and even continue to shock him when he stopped showing signs of life and answering questions. The “teachers” understood that they were causing the “student” severe suffering, that this was not normal, and asked the experimenter to stop. But nevertheless, they continued to shock the person with increasingly stronger shocks only because the experimenter said:

"Please continue";
“The experiment requires you to continue”;
“It is absolutely necessary that you continue”;
"You have no other choice, you have to continue."

The subjects were not bloodthirsty sadists. These were ordinary people who understood that they were hurting another person and that it was bad. This was against their morals. Of their own free will, of their own accord, they would never have done this. The problem is that they did not perceive themselves as the source of this violence. They perceived themselves only as an instrument in the hands of the experimenter, who, in their opinion, bore responsibility for this cruelty.

Numerous modifications to the experiment provided additional information about obedience. The closer the victim, the more often the subjects refused to administer electric shocks. Initially, the “students” were behind the wall, in the next room. When the “students” sat in the same room with the “teacher,” the latter’s degree of obedience decreased.

Women are just as obedient as men.

A special preliminary stipulation of the condition to stop the experiment at the first request of the “student” slightly reduced obedience, but 40% of the subjects still obeyed the experimenter.

When subjects were given the choice of any level of shock, the vast majority used the minimum shock force.

The quality of the authority does not matter. The subjects listened equally to both the experimenter from the leading scientific center in the country - Yale University, and the experimenter from the unknown "Bridgeport Research Group".

When the “student” demanded that the experiment be continued despite severe suffering, and the experimenter said that it was necessary to stop, the subjects stopped the shock discharges. That is, the point is not what the subjects do, but for whom they do it for. The subjects responded specifically to the authority, and not to the content of the instructions.

When an ordinary person demanded continuation of the punishments, the subjects did not listen to him.

When the two experimenters gave opposite instructions, the subjects stopped the experiment.

When one of the experimenters found himself in the role of a victim and demanded to stop the experiment, the subjects listened to the second experimenter, who retained the status of authority.

When two other “teachers” refused to continue punishing the “student,” the subjects’ obedience to the experimenter dropped sharply. That is, conformism, the influence of the group, turned out to be stronger than the influence of authority.

When the electric shocks were administered by another “teacher”, and the subject only read out the words or checked the correctness of the answers, obedience was very high.

Book

Film "Obedience"

A few months before the study began in 1961, a high-profile trial began in Israel against Adolf Eichmann, a Gestapo man and head of the department responsible for “solving the Jewish question.” The Eichmann trial gave rise to such a concept as “the banality of evil” - under this title a book was published by The New Yorker journalist Hannah Arendt, who was present at the trial. Observing Eichmann led Arendt to believe that there was nothing demonic or psychopathic about his figure. According to the journalist, he was an ordinary careerist who was used to carrying out orders from his superiors without any questions, no matter what the work itself implied, even mass murder.

In an attempt to explain the history of atrocities committed by humanity, similar to those that took place during World War II, Yale University professor, psychologist and sociologist Stanley Milgram decided to experiment. The scientist’s experience has become a kind of canonical example, which is studied by students of psychological faculties around the world. Milgram outlined the study in several stages, one of which was to conduct it outside the United States, namely in Germany. However, after processing the first data obtained from working with residents of the town of New Haven, Connecticut, Milgram pushed this idea aside. There was plenty of material, in his opinion. True, a little later the professor nevertheless traveled outside the United States in order to conduct similar experiments to confirm his theory.

The Milgram experiment has become one of the canonical experiments in psychology.

Milgram disguised the true experiment and recruited volunteers to participate in a “scientific study of memory.” The brochure stated that each volunteer would receive $4 and an additional 50 cents for travel expenses. Money will be issued in any case, regardless of the result, simply upon arrival at the laboratory. The process should have taken no more than an hour. Everyone was invited between the ages of 20 and 50, of different genders and professions: businessmen, clerks, ordinary workers, hairdressers, salesmen and others. However, students and high school students could not take part in the experiment.

Stanley Milgram with students, 1961

The experiment was presented to participants as a study of the effects of pain on memory. Upon arrival at the laboratory, the volunteer met another similar subject, whose role was played by a dummy actor. The experimenter explained that each of them would play “teacher” or “student,” depending on how the lot was decided. The “student’s” task was to remember as many phrases as possible from a list prepared in advance (for example, “red house” or “hot asphalt”). The “teacher” had to test the “student”, checking how many pairs of words he remembered, and in case of an incorrect answer, shock the latter. With each incorrect answer, the “teacher” had to increase the strength of the shock by 15 volts. The maximum electric shock was 450 volts.

Before the start of the experiment, all real subjects were asked to choose a piece of paper on which their role would be indicated. A dummy study participant also drew lots. All the pieces of paper said “teacher,” and the real participant always acted only in this role. Then the leader of the experiment escorted the “student” to a special room, where he was seated in a chair and the electrodes were connected. The entire procedure was demonstratively carried out in front of the “teacher,” who was then led into the next office and asked to take a place in front of the electric generator. In addition to the marks on the scale (from 15 to 450 in 15-volt increments), there was also a gradation in groups characterizing the strength of the blow (from “weak” to “dangerous” and “difficult to bear”) so that the “teacher” had a rough idea of the degree of pain. As a demonstration, before the experiment began, the “teachers” gave a light shock.

For an incorrect answer, the “teacher” had to shock the “student”

The “teacher” read the first word from each pair to the “student” and offered a choice of four options for ending the combination. The answer was displayed on a board that was located in front of the subject's eyes. The task of the “teacher” was not only to release the shock in case of an error, but also to warn the “student” about this, notifying him about the force of the blow, and then tell him the correct option. The experiment was to continue until the “student” remembered all the phrases, which were subsequently read to him again. Milgram set the bar: if the subject reached the 450 volt mark, the experimenter insisted that he continue to hit the “student” with the maximum shock, but after three presses on this lever the study ended.

The “student” is connected to the electrodes

In fact, during the experiment, of course, no one was shocked. The task of the decoy participant was to pretend to suffer - gradually, as the strength of the discharge increased, he moved from screams to pleas to stop the test. Sometimes the “student” would become quiet, feigning either loss of consciousness or a heart attack. If the answer to the question was not received within 5-10 seconds, this should have been regarded as an error and, accordingly, given an electric shock. The “teacher,” who heard all the moans, knocks and requests through the wall, at some point could have expressed a desire to immediately stop the torture, but the task of the curator was to convince him to go further. According to Milgram, 4 phrases of varying degrees of insistence were used: from “please continue” to “you must continue, you have no choice.” To questions about how painful this or that discharge would be, the experimenter answered that, in any case, there was no threat to life. The curator could also assure the subject that he takes full responsibility for the condition of the other participant. It is important to emphasize that no threats were made to the “teacher” if he refused to continue. However, if he still did not agree after the 4th, most “convincing” phrase, then the process was stopped.

In the main version of the experiment, which Milgram presented to the world, out of 40 subjects, 26 (that is, 65%) reached the end, that is, they “hit” the second participant with a maximum discharge of 450 volts. One person stopped at 375 volts, one at 360, and one at 345. Two more stopped the experiment when they reached 330 volts. Four people refused to participate when they reached 315 volts, and five refused to participate after the 300 volt mark.

65% of the experiment participants reached the maximum electrical scale

According to the recollections of one of the study participants, Joe Dimow, after the experiment was interrupted, the curator showed him several images and asked him to describe his thoughts on this matter. In one of the pictures, a young teacher was swinging a whip at a child, and the school principal was in charge of the “flogging.” Joe was then asked to diagram the responsibilities of each participant in the experiment: “teacher,” “student,” and supervisor. After this, the dummy participant was taken out of the second room, where the chair with electrodes was located. According to Dimou, he looked terrible, his face was in tears.

In 1961 and 1962, Milgram conducted a series of experiments that varied somewhat. Somewhere the “teacher” did not hear the groans of the “student” behind the wall, somewhere he was in the same room with the “student” (in this case there was less subordination to the curator). Sometimes the “teacher’s” task was to press the “student’s” hand to the electrode himself, which also reduced the percentage of obedience. Milgram played out scenarios with several fake “teachers” and a couple of handlers who could not agree with each other. In the event of disputes between “administrative officials”, the subjects showed more free will, but under pressure from the opinions of “colleagues” - the same “teachers”, as a rule, they gave in. In some cases, the “student” warned in advance about heart problems.

One of the experiment participants in front of the generator

Milgram's experiment received a lot of criticism. Thus, it was argued that research cannot initially be considered “pure” if its true purpose was not revealed to its participants. There were many questions about the procedure. Were the “teachers” fully aware of the degree of pain caused by electric shock? Could the fact that it was supervised by a Yale University professor influence their attitude toward the experiment? Did the subject have sadistic tendencies? Did they not have a special predisposition to submit to authority?

The participants in the experiment were not villains, but the most ordinary inhabitants

As a result of subsequent similar studies both in the United States and abroad, Milgram was able to put aside many of these questions that called into question the representativeness of the experiment. The professor argued that the results would vary slightly depending on the country in which the study took place. According to Milgram, the key role in such behavior is played by the idea that is ingrained in the human mind about the need to submit to authorities and authorities. In this case, the role of “authority” can be played by, in fact, any person dressed appropriately. In this case, such a representative of authority, the boss giving orders, was a researcher in a white coat. According to the professor’s assumptions, without the presence of an “authority” who insisted on continuing the execution, the experiment would have ended much faster. Milgram tried to prove that the vast majority were unable to offer any serious resistance to a person whom they considered to be in authority, but at the same time emphasized that the study participants themselves were no more villains and sadists than the most ordinary, average member of modern society.

The experiment was presented to participants as a study of the effect of pain on memory. The experiment involved an experimenter, a subject, and an actor playing the role of another subject. The “student” had to memorize pairs of words, and the “teacher” had to check how he remembered them; in case of an error, punishment followed. The subject had to “shock” the actor, the “discharge” increasing with each mistake made. Naturally, the “current generator” was not real, but the subjects did not know this, and the actors convincingly portrayed pain, twitching and making loud moans.

results

They turned out to be amazingly cruel: Milgram was unable to achieve complete disobedience to authority in any of the experimental groups. When the experimenter ordered to increase the “discharge of current,” there was always a person who brought the matter to an end and delivered a “deadly” discharge (by the way - 450 V).

Why is that

Milgram suggested that the subjects did not feel responsible for the rather severe punishments, but instead placed everything on the shoulders of the experimenter (after all, he was the one giving the instructions. Moreover, he insistently suggested continuing if the subject hesitated!). It is extremely difficult for people to go beyond their social role in a situation of subordination and following orders coming from a superior.

"This study showed an extremely strong willingness in normal adults to go who knows how far to follow the instructions of an authority."

Why is the experiment considered cruel?

By modern standards, the experiment is unethical because Milgram deliberately introduced the subjects into a stressful situation and did not reveal the essence of the experiment, withholding important information (about the dummy actor and the absence of current). As a result, it turned out that the subjects were forced to comply with the “necessary” rules, and in the end they were exposed as executioners and accused of cruelty. Milgram himself was sure that a barrage of criticism fell upon him due to the fact that many were unpleasantly surprised by the results of the experiment and the cruelty of ordinary people.

In the fall of 2013, a book by Australian psychologist Gina Perry was published, which completely cast doubt on the results of the famous experiment. Gina studied the experimental protocols and talked with the participants, after which she came to the conclusion that some of the subjects did not believe in what was happening and in the reality of the suffering they caused.

Half a century ago, Stanley Milgram conducted a legendary experiment that showed how easily ordinary people, obeying orders, do terrible things. And newly discovered archival materials indicate what motivates this willingness: simply the belief that cruelty serves a good purpose

PROFESSION: EXECUTIONER

In 1961, Adolf Eichmann, the immediate leader of the mass extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany, was tried in Jerusalem. The trial was important not only because the criminal received well-deserved retribution, but also because of the enormous influence it had on the development of modern ideas about human social behavior. The strongest impression on those watching the trial was made by the line of defense chosen by Eichmann, who insisted that while managing the death conveyor, he was only doing his job, fulfilling orders and the requirements of the laws. And this is very similar to the truth: the defendant did not at all give the impression of a monster, a sadist, a maniacal anti-Semite or a pathological personality. He was incredibly, terribly normal.

The Eichmann trial and a detailed analysis of the psychological and social mechanisms that force normal people to commit terrible atrocities are the subject of the classic book of moral philosophy by Hannah Arendt, who covered the trial for The New Yorker magazine, “The Banality of Evil. Eichmann in Jerusalem" (Europe, 2008).

“THE EXPERIENCE MUST BE CARRIED OUT TO THE END”

Another, no less famous study of the banality of evil was conducted by Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram, who proved experimentally: indeed, the most ordinary people, as a rule, are so inclined to obey a figure in authority that, “merely” following an order, they are capable of extreme cruelty towards other people towards whom one has neither malice nor hatred*. The Obedience Experiment, better known simply as the Milgram Experiment, was initiated a few months after Eichmann's trial and under his influence, and the first paper on its results was published in 1963.

The experiment was set up like this. It was presented to participants as a study on the effects of pain on memory. The experiment involved an experimenter, a subject (“teacher”), and an actor playing the role of another subject (“student”). It was stated that the “student” should memorize pairs of words from a long list, and the “teacher” should test his memory and punish for each mistake with an increasingly stronger electric shock. Before the start of the action, the “teacher” received a demonstration shock with a voltage of 45 V. He was also assured that the electric shocks would not cause serious harm to the “student’s” health. Then the “teacher” went into another room, began giving the “student” tasks and, with each mistake, pressed a button that supposedly gave an electric shock (in fact, the actor playing the “student” only pretended to receive shocks). Starting with 45 V, the “teacher” had to increase the voltage by 15 V up to 450 V with each new error.

If the “teacher” hesitated before giving the next “discharge,” the experimenter assured him that he took full responsibility for what was happening and said: “Please continue. The experience must be completed. You have to do it, you have no choice." At the same time, however, he did not threaten the doubting “teacher” in any way, including not threatening to deprive him of the reward for participating in the experiment ($4).

In the first version of the experiment, the room in which the “student” was located was isolated, and the “teacher” could not hear him. Only when the force of the “blow” reached 300 volts (all 40 subjects reached this point, and not one stopped earlier!), the “student” actor began to hit the wall, and this is what the “teacher” heard. Soon the “student” became quiet and stopped answering questions.

26 people reached the very end. They, obeying the order, continued to press the button, even when the “voltage” reached 450 V. On the scale of their “device,” values from 375 to 420 V were marked with the inscription “Danger: severe shock,” and marks 435 and 450 V were simply marked “ XXX."

Of course, the experiment was repeated many times, checked and rechecked, slightly varying the conditions (gender composition of participants, degree of pressure from the experimenter, behavior of the “student” actor). In one version, in particular, when the force of the “blow” reached 150 V, the “student” began to complain about his heart and asked to stop, and the “teacher” heard him. After this, 7 out of 40 people refused to increase the “voltage” beyond the 150-volt mark, but, oddly enough, the same 26 out of 40 reached the end - up to 450 V.

45 YEARS LATER

The impact of the Milgram experiment on the professional community has been so great that ethical codes have now been developed that make its complete reconstruction impossible.

But in 2008, Jerry Burger from Santa Clara University in the USA nevertheless reproduced Milgram's experiment**, modifying its conditions taking into account existing limitations. In Berger’s experiments, the “voltage” increased only to 150 volts (although the markings on the “device” scale went to the same 450 V), after which the experiment was interrupted. At the selection stage, participants were eliminated: firstly, those who knew about Milgram’s experiment, and secondly, emotionally unstable people. Each of the test subjects was told at least three times that he could interrupt the experiment at any stage, and would not have to return the reward ($50). The strength of the demonstration (real) electric shock that the subjects received before the start of the experiment was 15 V.

As it turned out, little had changed in 25 years: out of 40 subjects, 28 (that is, 70%) were ready to continue increasing the voltage even after the “student”, having allegedly received a 150-volt shock, complained of his heart.

IN THE NAME OF A HIGH PURPOSE

And now, thanks to archival materials***, which were analyzed by social psychologists from four universities in Australia, Scotland and the USA, it has been discovered that in the original experiment, everything was actually even worse than we used to think.

The fact is that from reading the works that Milgram himself published, one gets the impression that obeying orders for the participants in the experiment was difficult and unpleasant, if not completely painful. “I saw a respectable businessman enter the laboratory, smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was driven to a nervous breakdown. He trembled, stuttered, constantly tugged at his earlobe and wrung his hands. Once he punched himself on the forehead and muttered, "Oh God, let's stop this." Nevertheless, he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter and obeyed him unconditionally,” he wrote.

But studying the notes on the feedback that the subjects gave after the experiment was completed and their eyes were opened, explaining the true essence of what happened, tells a different story. In the archives of Yale University, such certificates are available regarding the impressions of 659 of the 800 volunteers who participated in various “takes” of the experiment. Most of these people - ordinary, normal people, not sadists or maniacs - showed no signs of remorse. On the contrary, they reported that they were happy to help science.

“This sheds new light on the psychology of submission and is consistent with other existing evidence that people who do evil are usually driven not by the desire to do evil, but by the belief that they are doing something worthy and noble,” comments one of the authors of the archival study, Professor Alex Haslam (Alex Haslam). His colleague on this work, Professor Stephen Reicher, echoed his sentiments: “One might suggest that we have previously misunderstood the ethical and theoretical issues posed by Milgram's research. One must ask oneself whether it is necessary to care for the well-being of experimental participants by making them think that causing suffering to others can be justified if it was done for a good purpose.”

Australian documentary director and professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, Kathryn Millard, also took part in the study. She used materials found in the archives in her new film, Shock Room, which is now being released. The film explores through cinematic means how and why people obey criminal orders, and, just as important, how and why some still refuse to do evil.

It's time to once again ask yourself the question: “What would I do?”

* S. Milgram “Behavioural Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology", 1963, vol. 67, no. 4.

** J. Burger “Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today?” American Psychologist, January 2009.

*** S. Haslam et al. “Happy to have been of service”: The Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments.” British Journal of Social Psychology, September 2014.