(26) Social Psychology class

In 1965 social psychologist Stanley Milgram designed an Obedience study. This study was to see to what extent people would follow orders and be cruel to another or not. At the heart of social psychology is the link between behavior and attitude, and the power of the situation. Milgram’s experiment took place at Yale University, which increased social pressure by making the experimenter seem more prestigious. Milgram’s studies tested an individual’s resilience under social pressure to meet the demands of authority, while being instructed to deliver potentially lethal volts of electricity to an individual that responded incorrectly to a word learning test. Obedience to unsafe social norms that neglect human safety standards may offer a perspective through affiliation of the strength of the situation in correlation to the behaviors and attitudes that may be derived as a result. Therefore, we will seek to explain the nature of the outcomes of his study through the dynamics of conformity, persuasion and compliance to an authority figure.

Stanley Milgram was interested in finding explanation to the evil that unfolded under Hitler’s Germany, and wondered what contributed to the guards becoming so obedient to such a malevolent leader. Milgram found that pressure to meet demands of authority can persuade an individual to conform to behaviors that are incongruent to their beliefs. He was startled that 65% of his test subjects went all the way to deliver electrical shocks of 450 volts. Milgram’s experiment received criticism because his study lacked a control as a baseline to compare his test subjects too. Milgram completed nearly 2 dozen studies with a diverse sample of more than 1,000 participants. As a result, he found a diverse effect in the subjects convictions due to the differences he created in situational influences. Milgram’s studies show some people will, and some won’t conform, and gives reason to when, and why they will conform.

Studies done by Zinardo have shown that mindless obedience is something seen as a way to escape the situation, since the situation involves complex rational thinking (Zimbardo, (1991)). Milgram found that when the subjects in his study found they would not be held responsible for their actions that they resumed without being conscious of the shocks that they were administering to the learner. The majority caved under the social pressure of the authority figure. They lacked positive traits such as common sensitivity and responsiveness. Once they started administering the shocks it was difficult for them to stop, thus they were on a “slippery slope”, and submitted to compliance by conforming to the unethical demands. The power of the situation prevails once again, and the subject internalized the role of teacher and lost self- consciousness. Being accepted by the experimenter (normative influence) took precedence over being concerned or being self- aware of the individual that begged for him to stop. The learner gave cue’s reminding the test subject of his heart problem (informational influence). It is common in informational influence that people will conform with the desire to be correct, but not in this scenario. The subject’s rational thinking was persuaded by the power of the situation, and the authority figures demands to continue on with the experiment. The overlooking of responsibility (attitude) yielded by the level of danger portrayed (electrical shocks), thus the behavior implicated was enough to cause grave harm to a fellow human being. Milgram’s study showed that an authority figure can persuade, and that in a loss of responsibility the subject can become, scrambled, disconnected, and sometimes can’t decide what to do even when making important moral decisions that regard human nature.

There was an ethical controversy regarding the Milgram studies. Milgram received harsh criticism that he held the subjects against their will and pushed them to go all the way. Milgram’s experimenter did not push the shock generating button the Subject did. A year after the study, follow up questions revealed that 84% of those that participated in the study said that they were happy to have been part of the study. The study may have taken the biggest toll on Milgram. He suffered 5 heart attacks and died in his early fifties. These studies don’t go without saying, that they were an important contribution to the hallmarks of social psychology.

Milgram also expressed resolution regarding future studies, and the role personality plays in obedience. I am certain there is a personality basis to obedience and disobedience, but I am sure we haven’t found it (Milgram, 1974). The class text shares info on personality, and those that may or may not conform. People high in agreeableness and conscientiousness are more likely to conform, in contrast to people high in openness and social progressiveness are less likely to conform.

Milgram’s studies were valid and have contributed greatly to conformity and obedience studies in the field of social psychology. He found an extreme form of obedience in his studies, and in correlation to this powerful situation the subjects lost control and obeyed the experimenter in an evil manner. Milgram himself was dismayed at the level his subjects obeyed, and at the extent of harm that could have taken place had the shocks been real. His findings exhibit how the power of the situation can challenge the behaviors and attitudes of test subjects and gives reasoning to why and when some people will and some won’t conform. These studies show that legitimate authority has persuasive power, and can influence individuals to comply, and accept destructive orders even if the actions are against their beliefs.