VPsych 112 Lecture 8 2024 PDF

Lecture 8 The power-point slides for lecture 8 should be read in conjunction with the video recording – ‘You Do As You Are Told’ (shown via blackboard and available from AV services, Central Library). This recording covers Milgram’s Obedience Experiment (MOE). Additional and crit...

Lecture 8 The power-point slides for lecture 8 should be read in conjunction with the video recording – ‘You Do As You Are Told’ (shown via blackboard and available from AV services, Central Library). This recording covers Milgram’s Obedience Experiment (MOE). Additional and critical material relating to the MOE is discussed on pages 706-710 and p. 713 of the course text (Passer & Smith, 2019). The power-point slides and the information from the course text is examinable. https://video.alexanderstreet.com/p/x6V16y1wJ The obedience experiments are the most famous studies in psychology They were carried by Stanley Milgram in the 1960’s at Yale University Milgram’s work was motivated by the horror’s of World War II He wanted to know how people from an advanced Western culture could come to murder millions of innocent men, women and children during the Holocaust? When Adolf Eichmann was brought to trial in Jerusalem in 1961, people were shocked They expected to see a monster but instead they saw a mild inoffensive man who looked more like a bureaucrat – who claimed that he was merely following orders Is it possible that such people are responsible for the massive slaughter? Hannah Arendt, the famous philosopher, – certainly thought so – and claimed that the actions of perpetrators could be explained through what she referred to as ‘the banality of evil’ Eichmann and his ilk she suggested were motivated not by hatred but by banal motives the desire to do a job well and to please their superiors Eichmann she argued ‘had no motives at all. He merely … didn’t realized what he was doing’ (Arendt, 1963, p. 287) Milgram basically set out to test this idea, would ordinary people hurt others if told to do so by an authority figure? In the typical Milgam experiment (n = 40) people were recruited though a job advertisement in a local paper. On arrival at the lab they were met by an experimenter, who introduced them to another participant (a confederate) who would take part with them in a learning experiment The purpose of the experiment, it was explained, was to examine the effects of punishment on memory. One participant was to be the ‘teacher’ the other was to be the ‘learner’ Participants drew lots to see who who be the ‘teacher’ and who would be the ‘learner’ The draw was ‘rigged’ – the naïve participant was always the ‘teacher’ and the confederate was always the ‘learner’ The teacher and the learner were then taken to another room The learner was strapped into a chair and electrodes were attached to his body the learner explained that he had a ‘heart condition’ and was a little worried The experimenter declared that ‘Although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent damage’ (Milgram, 1974, p. 19). The teacher was taken to another room where he sat in front of a shock generator There were 30 switches on the generator which ran from 15 volts to 450 volts. 15 - slight shock - 75, moderate - 135, strong - 255, danger - 450 danger XXX The ‘teacher’s’ job was to ask the learner a series of questions. Each time the ‘learner’ made an incorrect response he was to be given an electric shock and, each time a shock was given the shock level was increased by 15 volts. At this stage the ‘teacher’ was given a sample shock of 45 volts If a participant continued to the maximum level they were instructed to continue at 450 volts for subsequent errors The learner’s responses were given to the teacher via intercom At 75 volts, the learner gave a grunt (‘ugh) At 150 volts, the learner demanded to be released (get me out, my heart is bothering me) At 180 volts, the learner screamed (I can’t stand the pain) At 225 volts, there were agonized screams At 315 volts, there intensely agonized screams (let me out, let me out, let me out) At 345 volts, there was silence  65 % people went to 450 danger xxx Why 1. Responsibility was transferred to the experimenter – a legitimate authority figure. 2. Participants begin with small punishments and progress to greater ones. 3. Social identity – people identify with the experiment and experimenter (Reicher & Haslam, 2020). 4. Experimenter’s directedness, legitimacy and consistency (Haslam et al. 2014)  Factors that influence obedience 0 – 100 % 1. Remoteness of the victim. 2. Closeness and legitimacy of the authority figure. 3. Diffusion of responsibility 4. Characteristics of the teacher?  Remoteness of the victim Obedience greatest when the learner is out of sight When the teacher and learner were in the same room obedience dropped to 40% When the teacher had to make contact with the learner by pressing his hand onto a shock plate conformity dropped to 30%  Closeness and legitimacy of the authority figure Obedience was highest when the authority figure was close by and perceived as legitimate When the experimenter left the room, gave orders by phone or when an ordinary participant gave instructions obedience dropped to 20% When experimenter calls a halt to the study but the learner want to go on obedience drops to 0% If there are two experiments and they argue obedience drops to 0% (Reicher & Haslam , 2017)  Diffusion of responsibility When another person gave the shock and the real participant had to perform a lesser role conformity increased to 93% When people made to feel fully responsible or give shocks to close relatives conformity dropped to 0% (Perry, 2011) When teachers are tested in groups and others in the group decide to stop, obedience drops to 10%  Characteristics of the teacher When women are teachers they obey just as much as men (cf. Perry, 2011) Authoritarians more likely to obey (Elms & Milgram, 1966) If people identify with the victim they are less likely to obey  Ethics 1. Is it ethical to run such experiments? 2. Are participants treated with dignity? Over 50% said they experienced some level of discomfort Milgram claimed that no-one who took part suffered lasting damage Most claimed to find the experiment enriching and instructive less than 1.3% sorry to have taken part  New Studies Virtual reality simulations of the Milgram experiment – (Slater et al., 2006) Immersive digital realism – where actors are trained to play the role of normal participants (Haslam et al., 2015) Stopping at 150 volts – 80% of participants who went this far in the original experiments proceeded to 450 volts (Burger 2009) All findings are consistent with the original studies  What do the findings mean? There is obedience and disobedience? People do not blindly follow orders. People like Eichmann were true believers, they believed in Nazi ideology and showed ingenuity in killing people. People harm others because they identify with, and listen to the appeals of malicious authorities (Reicher & Haslam, 2017).  Reicher and Haslam (2017, 2020) 1. People show obedience to the extent that they identify with the experimenter. Identification varied with the proximity of the experimenter. 2. Participants given a number of prods – only one is a direct order Prod 1 ‘please go on’ Prod 2 ‘the experiment requires that you continue’ Prod 4 ‘you have no other choice you must continue’ In the Milgram (1974) study the response is ‘If this was Russia maybe, but not in America’ The final prod doesn’t work, when given this order people don’t obey (Burger, 2011; Haslam et al, 2015) This is strong evidence against the idea of blind obedience Its suggest that people look to others to act one way or another – from people they trust and identify with. Orders are given by those who we identify with and who do not otherwise justify what they ask us Maybe that is why the Nazi state was so efficient, not because people followed orders blindly - but because the leaders often didn’t have to issue orders, the followers did what they did because they believed that what they did it was the right thing to do?