On Thursday, I mentioned something called a 'Milgram experiment.' First, special thanks to Alex for briefly describing the general Milgram experiment paradigm. Second, I wanted to give you all more background into this experiment, so if you are interested, keep reading!The 'Milgram experiment' was a set of experiments on social obedience conducted in the 1960s by Steven Milgram at Yale University. The study set out to determine whether people were more willing to inflict bodily harm on others if told to do so by an authority figure.
Two things make the Milgram experiment so infamous:
- it brought the question of ethical research with human subjects into the public light
- its original goal was to provide an explanation for how humans could carry out the genocide of the holocaust (the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann had started just three months prior)
Milgram reported (in his own words):
[Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.]However, Milgram's data were later called into question when Australian psychologist Gina Perry reviewed Milgram's data and personal notebooks and found that actually half of all subjects refused to obey.
Wikipedia has a great article on this topic (from which I largely cribbed this post). If you want to read more, click here. If you want to watch the experiment in action, see the embedded video below.
That video was pretty powerful. The guy obviously was uncomfortable with what he was doing but kept doing so at the persistence of the "authority" figure. The fact that he would not be held responsible seemed to drive his behavior, too.
ReplyDeleteThis has been compared to the holocaust a number of times and it would be interesting to me to know how the people who carried out the deeds in the holocaust actually felt about what they were told to do. I'm sure there were journals kept. I think this experiment is an interesting "proof of concept" that authority figures can influence people to do things that they are uncomfortable doing but I think extrapolation to something like the Holocaust could prove difficult. I don't think something of that magnitude can be explained by authoritative control over subordinates.
The Milgram experiment reminded me a lot of the Stanford prison experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/). In this study, random college students were selected as either prison guards or prisoners, and in just 6 days the experiment was canceled because of psychological torture the "guards" were imposing on the "prisoners". In this study, as far as I'm aware, the "guards" weren't even coerced into taking on the role they did.
Oh man! I forgot about the prison experiment. From what I recall regarding interview with those involved in the Holocaust, the key appeared to be to dehumanize the Jewish people (along with extensive drug use supposedly). Of course, all of that is a retrospective, post hoc analysis of the situation. Who knows what is the real etiology.
DeleteThere is actually a new book out about the Milgram experiments. The results of the study are certainly not without controversy. The subjects were pushed pretty hard in some instances to deliver the shock. I caught the interview with the author on NPR a while back it it was pretty interesting to hear her take.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/209559002/taking-a-closer-look-at-milgrams-shocking-obedience-study
I forgot about the book! I remember hearing about it on NPR too. I haven't read it. Maybe I should. Do you know anyone who read the book?
DeleteWhile interesting, I find the results hard to extrapolate. The idea that his journals document that so many people refused to go on and required repeating the commands many times make me wonder what and when any alternative motives may enter the picture, for example, the "I am only doing this so I can leave" motive given that the "I have said no several times but for some reason the experiment is continuing" motive isn't working. Specifically, the fact that one participant was prompted 26 times makes me wonder how artificial the environment is. Perhaps if one wanted to apply to the holocaust or other scenario, having the participant weigh the idea of shocking another vs immediately accepting a punishment/shock of their own would be a more "real" scenario to see how one weighs the morality of hurting another vs the certain infliction of a reprimand that would otherwise happen for not hurting another.
ReplyDelete