Milgram Experiment on Obedience (PDF)

Milgram was effected by trials of Nazi leader after WWII. Nazi Leader Eichmann was a Nazi Officer who escaped to South American (and was not tried in Noremberg Trials post WWII). He was captured, brought to trial, then death by Nazi-Hunters in 1960, right 181 before Milgrim conducted his study....

Milgram was effected by trials of Nazi leader after WWII. Nazi Leader Eichmann was a Nazi Officer who escaped to South American (and was not tried in Noremberg Trials post WWII). He was captured, brought to trial, then death by Nazi-Hunters in 1960, right 181 before Milgrim conducted his study. Eichmann was a normal guy (ordinary, normal personality) who wasn't guilty after caught. He didn't have an intense hatred like other Nazi leaders. This was surprising because Eichmann had deported Jews to death camps. Eichmann acknowledge he was the one who did this, and didn't feel guilty of the consequences. o "The world now understands the concept of desk murder. We know that one doesn't need to be fanatical, sadistic, or mentally ill to murder millions; that it is enough to be a loyal follower, eager to do ones duty" \~ Simon (the person who captured Eggman)  Many Nazi Officers/German followers/Eichmann said they were "just following orders". Everyday people can commit horrendous acts if put into certain situations.  Milgram wanted to know if everyday people can be made to follow orders like the Nazi officers.  Can a normal person be made to harm an innocent individual just because of an authority figure? It isn't as simple as "they are evil" "we are good" Milgram Experiment on Obedience  Milgram studies were done to study the willingness of participants, average Americans, to obey authority figures that instructed them to perform behaviors that conflicted with their personal beliefs and morals.  Deceived study participants in order to recruit participants. Posted ads about recruiting people to a study on memory/learning. The purpose was to get everyday people.  When participants arrived at lab, participants were told the study they were participating in was going to be looking at effects of punishment on memory/learning (Do people learn best after being punished for making a mistake). o In the study there was the experimenter, one confederate (in on the study) participant, and another participant (real participant). Between the two experiments, they "randomly" decided who was going to be the learner and who was going to be the teacher. Not so random, the confederate always got learner role, and real experiment got the teacher role. o Learner (confidante experiment) was hooked to a \# of electrodes, and told that the teacher will teach the learner a \# of word pairs. Then the learner would be shocked whenever they gave the wrong answer. § In some versions: the learner noted that they were worried about the experiment because of a heart condition. The experimenter told them not to worry - that the shocks would be painful but not dangerous. § Teacher (real participant) was taken to different room without visual contact with learner, and sat in front of shock box. Shock box had switches that would shock the experimenter at 15V, and then switches increased in increments up until 450V. Switches also labeled from slight shock, moderate shock, strong shock, very strong shock, intense shock, danger. 182 § Teacher than instructed to read a list of word pairs. Then were told to read first word of each pair and then offer four possible pair words. Leaner would indicate their answer by pressing a button which was displayed to the teacher. § Whenever the learner made error, teacher was instructed to give shocks with increasing increments with each wrong answer (no actual shocks were given even though the teacher thought so). § After giving some correct answers, the learner started giving incorrect answers (which were determined by the experimented beforehand). § At the first coupe shocks, the learner would not elicit much of a reaction. After several increasing shocks, learner would cry out in pain/pound out on wall. Also after some shocks would start complaining about their heart condition. As shocks increased, continued to yell/scream they want to quit. § Finally, all responses from learner would cease and only silence. o Teacher instructed to continue by experimenter when teacher looked @ experimenter for guidance. Experimenter told teacher: "please continue (please go on)", "the experiment requires that you continue, "it is absolutely essential you continue", "you have no choice, you must go on". o Experiment stopped when teacher had 4 verbal protests about the study or when they gave the 450V shock three times. o Before experiment, Milgram asked professors/clinical psychologists if the teacher would obey the commands of the experimenter. They said that most teachers would stop once the learner protested and that very very few people would shock all the way. Those that did, were probably psychopaths.  When results of study came out, the results were very disturbing -- 65% of participants shocked all the way. The teachers had protested and were trembling, but still obeyed commander and shocked to 450V. In versions of experiment where the learner claimed to have a heart conditions and complained that the shocks were hurting their heart -- compliance dropped very little -- to 63%. Everyday Americans heard the cries of people they were tormenting and continued with the task. **VERY FEW PEOPLE RESISTED** **AUTHORITY.** o "I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects\' strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects\' ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation: ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with 183 fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority." \~ Milgram What Can We Learn from Milgram Experiment?  One of most famous psychological study  Regular everyday people will comply with an authority figure even if it goes against their moral values and harming others.  Study has been **replicated**, and results remain same, no matter what country/time period/location. Full compliance always hovered at 61-66%  Study was perceived to be unethical today and at the time too in the 1960s. o Milgram was denied tenure at Harvard and kept from entering lots of academic institutions because of the negative perceptions associated with the experiment.  Things we should avoid: o Many participants really felt ashamed about what they had done, but even ashamed participants tended to speak poorly of the victims -- he wouldn't have been shocked if he answered correctly/was smarter, the "**just world** **phenomenon" --** idea that universe is fair so people must get what they deserve - belief good things happen to good people, and vice versa (bad things happen to bad people). Some people use this to justify their actions. Assuming things had gone bad to the victim because he was deficient. o Also, many participants were comforted by **passing responsibility of actions to** **others** (when experimenter said they'd take full responsibility and participant would not be responsible for the harm, participants felt more comfortable). *"I* *was just following orders".* (seen in other cases of atrocities) o Is there a way we can stop this from happening, stop us from obeying authority in these controversial situations? § Be aware of the just world phenomena- and try to stop ourselves from making judgements about people for being in the situations they are in. For example: Stop thinking that people are poor because they didn't do well in school, didn't work hard enough, and didn't care enough. *Stop* *believing in the just world phenomena.* § Remind ourselves to take responsibility for our own actions. Avoid placing blame on others. *Stop the passing-responsibility to others* § Also, caution ourselves against **self-serving bias** -- that we could never commit acts like this, because apparently, in the right situations most of us would. o **Fundamental attribution error** -- focuses only on actions of others, tendency to believe that others in out-groups behave a certain way based on inherent personalities/flaws. Idea of attributing character too strongly to explain another group's actions. Real takeaway of study -- how easy it is to think others are atrocious and evil, while people like us would only perform evil acts because 184 they're misguided. Truth is we're all misguided, all susceptible to authorities in ways that many of us would find upsetting.  Important to have compassion for all people -- victims and aggressor, don't know how you'd act in their place.  Conversely, be skeptical if you hear "I was doing my job/just following orders" and try not to fall into this trap yourself. Zimbardo Prison Study -- the Stanford Prison Experiment  **Zimbardo Prison Study -- the Stanford Prison Experiment** - Final of three studies on conformity/obedience  Study was conducted in 1971  Purpose: how conformity/obedience can result in acts different from usual (on their own) or even contrary to how they think they would act. The answer is complicated (not only bad people do bad things). In certain situations can make otherwise ordinary people behave in strange ways.  Goal: How social norms/conventions can influence behaviours of participants playing the roles of prisoners/guards.  Prisoners/guards get so caught up in roles that they had to stop experiment early.  Participants knew all about the study -- no physical or psychological deception. And participants were normal (male, middle class, university students, with no medical/psychological problems).  18 students randomly assigned to be guards or prisoners. All knew the assignment was random.  Had participants in prisoners arrested at unexpected times on a random day. Prisoners were treated as prisoners from the start and the prison had no windows and clocks so it became an environment different from outside world. The prisoners were fingerprinted, handcuffed, and numbered after arrest.  Also met with guards and told them they were not supposed to physically harm prisoners, but could create fear/loss of privacy/loss of control/loss of individuality. Given uniforms, batons, and sunglasses. Instructed to refer to prisoners by \#s and not names. Guards can do anything to maintain except for physically harm the participants.  Day 1 uneventful. Then prisoners began to rebel against guards. Guards had to decide what to do.  Day 2: early prisoner rebellion against guards and some prisoner's remained in their cell. Guards fought back against prisoners actions because it was a danger to their authority. Prisoners cursed at guards. At some point, guards began to see actual participants as dangerous prisoners that needed to be controlled. Guards used fire extinguishers on them and forced them to strip down. Guards regained some control and rebelling prisoners were put in a closet/solitary confinement. Closet only big enough to stand but they couldn't lie down or sit. 185 o After 36 hours prisoners began to break down -- literally. One prisoner starts to mentally break down (depression and uncontrollable rage, screamed, cried, yelled). Not the only prisoner who had mental breakdown, he was just the first.  Day 3, situation went even further. Participants went on hunger strike. In response, guards forced the prisoners to repeat their \#s over and over again, exercise (pushups till exhaustion), withheld bathroom privileges and other basic amenities, and tried to make the prisoners turn on each other and break them down.  Day 4, continued escalations.  Day 5, same.  Day 6: Zimbardo had involved himself as prison warden. Zimbardo never realized things had gone wrong. His girlfriend, Maslach visited prison and so upset by what she saw she made him stop the experiment. His girlfriend is how Zimbardo was brought back to reality. Zimbardo then ends study  By this time, half of prisoners already left from breakdowns. No guards had left. Closer Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment  Before experiment: all prisoners were similar, same background, college students, middle class, no physical or psychological conditions  Prisoners did not band together usually, they were pretty distrustful of each other. The prisoners saw each other as informants.  And guards didn't encourage solidarity, but tended to reward those they saw as good prisoners by giving privileges such as better foods, basic privileges, allowing them to keep mattresses etc. By giving privileges to some inmates and not others - guards broke solidarity of prisoners.  Some released early due to emotional trauma. BUT, none of the prisoners just stopped and left the experiment, even though they were told at beginning of the experiment (in the consent form they signed) that they could. Why? Maybe it was a misunderstanding, they convinced each other to stay, or maybe didn't want to give up \$ they were going to get for engaging in the experiment. These prisoners were just volunteered who could have left at any time.  Why did the guards act so poorly towards the prisoners? The guards thought the prisoners were wimps, troublemakers, or faking distress. Many thought their behavior was not too extreme and placed blame of behavior on prisoners. None of the guards left the study and some were upset that the study ended early.  The experiment shows us: o the influence situation can have on our behavior -- might be due to **situational** **attribution** (due to situation), not **dispositional attribution** (internal characteristics/personalities of people) o It becomes much easier to behave badly towards individuals who suffer from **deindividualization** (loss of self) -- In this case prisoners forced to dress same, and addressed as number. 186 o Bad behavior caused **cognitive dissonance** -- guards knowing their behavior was inappropriate, tried to reduce their mental distress by cognitive dissonance reduction - overly justified their behaviors -- everything happened because prisoners were whims or they deserved it. They changed their cognition. o Also role of **internalization** -- participants internalized their prison roles. Prisoners incorporated their roles into beliefs, and let it influence their attitudes/cognitions/behaviours.  But many problems with the study: o Zimbardo himself played role of prison warden (to observe behaviors of input), but by doing so he compromised his objectivity (not a neutral observer). He was so involved that he passively allowed a lot of unethical behavior. Why didn't stop? He himself thought they were faking it to get released.  Also, according to scientific methodology, this wasn't a good experiment. What were the operational definitions of dependent/independent variables? What was being manipulated, what was being measured, where were controls, etc.? Also small sample size? Different results if other people were involved? (Cant replicate so hard to know!) Also good example of **demand characteristics** (how much of behavior was influenced by how they thought experimenter wanted them to behave consciously or unconsciously). o Possible that all participants were acting the way that Zimbardo wanted them to act.  Also could have been affected by **selection bias** -- no deception in study, so what kind of student willingly signs up to be in prison for 2 weeks? So, was this really random sample?  Overall: these criticisms don't discredit its results. The results of the study line up with other studies of conformity and obedience with stricter methodologies. Factors that Influence Conformity and Obedience  Are there factors that will make someone more likely to conform? Are there external factors that can cause someone to change how they think? External factors can cause someone to do things that have nothing to do with the person. o **Group size** -- more likely to conform in groups of 3-5. o **Unanimity** -- when opinions of group are unanimous (everyone agrees). In the Ash experiment, there was one supporter who answered correctly before the experimenter, and full-compliance of experimenter dropped from 37% to 5%. Individuals claimed that the response of the supporter influenced their response -- they said they didn't. Shows that supporter shows reduced likelihood of conformity. We're not aware of effects a defector can have (someone who conform). o **Group status** -- why children more likely to go along with popular group. Why we trust four doctors over four gardeners about our health. o **Group cohesion**- if we feel no connection with group, feel less of need to go along with that group. 187 o **Observed behaviour** -- whether we believe our behaviour is observed. In Ash experiment, when the participant came in late, they said his response would be recorded on paper and not shared with the group. If response in Asch line was not shared with group, the experimenter was much less likely to conform. o **Public response** -- if we think we're met with acceptance vs. shunning. (happy to conform if we will be met with shunning, but will happily not conform if we think we will be met with acceptance) o Internal factors **--** § **prior commitments** (if we say something earlier that goes against group, we will decrease conformity because we are less likely to say something different later. If we said something earlier that is along the lines of the group, we will have increased conformity because we will say the same thing now. We are not likely to change what we say). § **feelings of insecurity** -- more likely to follow judgements of others (conformity)  Likelihood someone will obey -- following orders without question/protest. OBEDIENCE. In order to prevent negative consequences from disobeying. o Depends on type of authority giving orders. o Our **closeness** to authority giving orders- more likely to accept orders from someone we respect o **Physical proximity** -- more likely to comply with someone we are close to. In Milgram when authority standing close by/behind the experimenter (the teacher) they are more likely to obey. o **Legitimacy** of authority -- if wearing lab coat/carry a clipboard we are more likely to obey. Shown in Milgram study. o Also **institutional authority** -- well-respected university. Expectation that these places won't give you a harmful command. Can also be physical or symbolic (ex. police/government). o **Victim distance** -- in original Milgram study, teacher couldn't see learner (victim). If could see participant, reduced likelihood participant (teacher) would obey experimenter. But still didn't stop everyone (30% of participants gave all shocks) o **Depersonalization** -- when leaner/victim is made to seem less human through stereotypes/prejudices, people are less likely to object against them § Depersonalization is a symptom of serious mental illness (although it can happen to anyone, repeated instances are suggestive of a dissociative disorder) in which a person feels like she has stepped outside of herself and is watching herself act, with no sense of control over her behavior. o **Role models for defiance** -- more likely to disobey orders when we see others doing the same.  No one type of **personality** makes someone more susceptible to authority. But people's **moods** can have an effect -- those with rough day less likely to conform. Status and culture can play a role, those of low socioeconomic status (those with low power) are more likely to conform. Also cultures like US/Europe (individualized cultures) that 188 emphasize individual achievement less likely to conform than collective cultures (Asia, cultures that emphasize family/group).  People conform all the time like going to school or eating cereal for breakfast.  These are reasons why ordinary people can do terrible things. But knowing these can reduce the negative outcomes. Just 1 non-conformer can make others not conform as well. Can understand social influence better knowing these factors. Bystander Effect  Person falls to ground nearby, would you help? People say yes, research says no. If in group, less likely to help. With increased group size, people feel less inclined to take action - called bystander effect. o **Bystander effect** Individual may feel less inclined to take action because of presence of others in the group. The bystander effect refers to a group process in which individuals observe an injustice or a crime being perpetuated and do not intervene. o Small group = less bystander effect. Large group = more bystander effect (leads to nothing happening by any one individual and people might not even call 911)  Why? One may be lack of medical knowledge, or limited experience in assistance and think someone else would do it (one might assume that with such a large group of people, someone must have more experience than I have with unconscious person). This is called the diffusion of responsibility theory o **diffusion of responsibility theory** -- explains bystander effect. When individuals are in presence of others where help is needed, feel less personal responsibility and less likely to take action when needed. § In a small group you don't diffuse the responsibility. You are more likely to feel personal responsibility to intervene. Ex. In a small group you might realize that you are only one who has practiced CPR.  Amplified by amount of people in the group. If you were to collapse in small group, less chance of bystander effect. If only few people, more likely that people would be more inclined to take action and help you. Feel more personal responsibility.  Bystander effect can lead to little happening by any individual. One example is story of **Kitty Genovese** -- 28 year old women living in NYC who was stabbed, raped, and robbed while 38 people were in vicinity (witnesses). Horrific attack spanned over half an hour. Kitty was pleading for help and the victim later returned to kill her. 38 witnesses didn't take action because there were so many other people present in the vicinity.  **Deindividuation** -- those in group are more likely to act inappropriately because crowd conceals person's identity. Good example is behavior of some on Black Friday. Presence of large group there is violence (shoppers trample employees, shot shoppers, stolen goods from stores). Presence of large group decreases their inhibition/guilt, hence increases antisocial/deviant behavior. Another example is the internet -- anonymous platform causes people to express opinions they typically would not express. (ex. Youtube comments people are nasty, cyber bullying) 189 Social Facilitation and Social Loafing  **Social facilitation** -- how would presence of others affect your behavior? Would it *Help* *or hinder* your performance? According to social facilitation, most **dominant response** for particular behavior would be shown. Dominant response refers to response most likely to occur. In the example of a presentation, if you practice inside and out, presence of others will lead you to perform well. If you haven't practiced well, presence of others will make you perform more poorly (exacerbate your mistakes). Social facilitation occurs when individuals perform better in front of an audience. o Occurs when an individual completes a manageable task in front of an audience. When an individual works on a challenging task in front of an audience, this might increase arousal beyond optimal and interferes with performance" o Presence of others increases your **arousal** -- your general physiological or psychological excitement (Increased HR, faster breathing, activation of autonomic nervous system) and is known as *nervous energy*. Increased energy/arousal increases likelihood of dominant response occurring. Whether dominant response is correct or accurate depends on how easy the task is, and how well you've learned it/rehearsed it. Presence of others improves performance (helps) on **simple tasks**, and hinders it on **difficult** **tasks**/unpracticed tasks. (This is known as **Yerkes-Dodson Law**). § Increased arousal occurs only when person's efforts are evaluated. Ex: if you are giving a presentation to close friends who are not evaluating you, you may not have any nervous energy, because you feel comfortable around them  **Social loafing** is a tendency to put forth less effort in group task if the individual contributions aren't evaluated. Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to put forth less effort when part of a group. o **Group-produced reduction of individual effort** -- groups experiencing social loafing are less productive, put forth less effort, and perform poorly. Perhaps to guard against being the person who is doing all the work, or because you know that your individual contributions are not evaluated. 190 § Ex: in group project of a presentation, they put in less effort and perform poorly. o Can be reduced by making task more difficult, or separating performance of individual in the group (giving own person their own grade), or make individual components to each group member  So does presence of others help or hinder performance? Depends.  The **Hawthorne effect** (also referred to as the observer **effect**) is a type of reactivity in which individuals modify or improve an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed. (acronym: observe the THORNes) o The Hawthorne effect occurs when an individual participant changes his or her behavior, specifically due the awareness of being observed. Agents of Socialization  Agents of Socialization: Refers to parts of society that are important for socialization (the process of learning the norms and values in a society)  **Socialization** is a life-long process where we learn how to interact with others. Everything we consider to be normal is actually learned through socialization -- how we learn to walk/talk/feed ourselves, and how we learn behavioural norms that help us fit in.  **Important agents of socialization** -- what's used to transmit (pass around) culture, values, beliefs about acceptable behaviors, and beliefs. Agents include people, organizations, and institutions that help us learn about our social world. o Examples of Agents of Socialization: popular culture, family, and religion. o Our **family** -- most important agent of socialization. When you are a child, totally dependent on others to survive. Your parents teach you how to care for yourself, how close relationships work, their beliefs/values/norms, how to talk to others. § Malcom Gladwell's Book "*Outlier*" -- Looks at how family plays a role in socialization. How wealthy parents raise kids vs. less fortunate parents raise children. One example is trip to doctor's office-- wealthy parents encouraged to ask questions, while kids less fortunate unlikely to criticize doctor. Wealthy kids encouraged to challenge authority, while less wealthy kids taught to listen to authority. Shows us how kids are raised and how it affects their interactions with others (in this case authority). o **School** is important. Schools teach life skills along with science and math-- don't learn from academic curriculum, but learn social skills from interactions with teachers and other students -- We learn the importance of obeying authority, act interested, learn to be quiet, to wait etc. Part of the "**hidden curriculum**": standard behaviors that are deemed acceptable that are subtly taught by teachers. o **Peers** teach us develop our social behaviours. Peers values and behaviors contradict values of our families/parents at times, and influence us. Peer pressure. How our values of our peers influence us