What did Milgram's research contribute to social psychologists' understanding of obedience?

We live in a society that demands social order. We are expected to follow rules and accept commands from authoritative figures (e.g. policemen, teachers and doctors). We are, in fact, constantly subjected to daily instructions, for example, adhering to road signs, fulfilling social etiquette obligations and abiding legal laws. The fact that obedience is a vital attribute demanded from citizens is perhaps why Milgrams participants acted the way they did. In this essay, we will consider several explanations as to why people obey, assess the factors that yield different levels of compliance and regard the overall impact of Milgrams research. Milgrams research is revealing in the sense that it powerfully demonstrates the act of obedience. It poses the question of how far would a human obey to the extent of causing another human pain. The unsettling results suggest this tendency for us to obey is strong enough to make us behave against our morals. It implies even goodnatured people can be coerced into committing cruel acts. Thus, an important inference we can draw from Milgrams research is that human behaviour can be altered by the situation (Blass, 2009). The question is what features of the situation compelled participants to obey whereby personality exerted little influence. Various factors contribute to this phenomenon, one of which is the immediacy between the learner and participant. In Milgrams four-proximity conditions experiment, he demonstrated that as immediacy increases, obedience rates decreases. It is possible that empathy increased due to participants experiencing the victims pain more vividly (Hogg & Vaughan, 2008). On the other hand, Blass (2009) argues the decrease in obedience rates between the remote and voice-feedback condition is 1

considered insignificant to reflect the two diverse situations. This is further supported by Miranda et al. (1981, cited in Blass, 1991) who replicated the same experiment in Spain and found no significant difference in obedience levels between the two same conditions. Blass (1991) observed there were several ambiguities in the pattern of results for example; it is perplexing to find a substantial decrease in obedience rates when the victim switched from voicing out his pain to becoming visible to the participant, yet only a small further reduction in obedience rates was induced when physical action was enforced in the touch-proximity condition. In light of this, Blass (1991) suggested further analysis into the situational variables should be taken in order to understand these patterns of results. This will hopefully form clearer explanations on obedience as well as predicting obedient behaviour in other frameworks.

Authority is an important feature of the situation that affects obedience levels. It is strongly linked to power, which has the ability to exert influence on peoples behaviour (Hogg & Vaughan, 2008). Participants clearly saw Milgram as the authoritative figure due to his title as the experimenter and his association with science. The laboratory coat signified legitimate power which uniforms often represent in society (Bickman, 1974). Morelli (1983, cited in Burger, 2009) suggests the experimenters expertise contributed to the high obedience rates. It may have caused participants to have certain assumptions such as believing he conducted the experiment several times, and would not have been nave enough to risk the safety of others. In addition, the experimenter projected indifference towards the victims grief, which may have reassured participants that the shocks were safe or that this part of the procedure was supposedly normal (Burger, 2009). Interestingly, Orne and

Holland (1968, cited in Blass, 2009) believed the participants felt the shocks were false. But this seems highly unlikely as Milgram (1963) stated he provided sample shocks in his procedure. More importantly, if participants did not feel the learners were being genuinely shocked, it would not explain why they experienced such unexpected emotional tension and distress.

Milgram (1983, cited in Burger, 2009) understood the influence of his presence as an authoritative figure but stated this was often portrayed in the real world, and therefore did not defer too much on this consideration. However, we should realise that the nature of authority is highly dominant in determining whether people will obey or not. Hogg and Vaughan (2008) mentioned the less proximity between the participant and authoritative figure, the lower the obedience levels. This is supported by Milgrams finding of obedience rates decreasing to 20.5% when he gave orders via telephone. In the self-decision condition, Milgram (1974) allocated more control to the participant whereby they could govern the amount of punishment given to the learner. Results showed they often administered a lower voltage of shock compared to the successive increments in the standard experiment. From this we could deduce that the power of the situation decreases if one has more authority (thus more control over their actions). In this respect, not only do situational variables need to be further analysed as Blass (1991) addresses, but perhaps authority variables require supplementary investigation. On a further note, what if we were to compare situational variables with authority ones? Which would have a more pronounced effect? Such questions indicate a wider scope for further research.

To answer why people felt compelled to obey when pressurised in a situation, Milgram (1974, cited in Blass, 2009) proposed the agentic shift theory by which certain internalisations are made within the individual, which can eventually lead to destructive obedience. This involves transferring social responsibility from oneself to the authoritative figure. Although this explanation seems favourable, Milgrams evidence weakly supports this idea. Judging from participants emotional anguish, it is clear they experienced conflict between moral and social duty (Milgram, 1963), more importantly it doubts Milgrams explanation on displacement of responsibility because the participants emotional distress infers not everyone was in that agentic state. Conversely, it could provide minor support if we interpreted the emotional distress as a result of participants only being partially in the agentic state. Although in terms of future research, it would be difficult to measure such a concept.

To some extent, group pressure is another factor which influences obedience levels (Hogg & Vaughan, 2008). Milgram was originally inspired from Aschs work on conformity (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). To demonstrate the relationship between conformity and obedience, in one variation Milgram (1974) employed three teachers, two of which were confederates and the third was the actual participant who administered the shock. It appears majority influence affects humans obedience rates, given that when only one teacher left merely 7.5% refused to take part in the study. If one teacher quits, it leaves the participant with the majority as they are still with the other teacher. Immediately as teacher two quits, this leaves the participant in the minority if he were to continue the experiment on his own. Although the explanation of conformity relating to obedience rates is perhaps considered plausible, the evidence appears weak for it. 30% refused to continue the experiment after both teachers quit,

meaning 70% still continued, which suggests conformity may not have such a significant effect. Furthermore, in Burgers (2009) experiment, he found no change in obedience levels in his modal-refusal condition in which participants were able to witness disobeying was a viable option.

Milgrams research has created much controversy as it emphasised how the power of the situation strongly determines human behaviour. His crucial finding suggests authority is not always used for maintaining social order, but can be abused. We would expect people to take the right action if they were ordered to do something they felt was immoral. This belief was supported when Milgram (1974) asked psychiatrists, students and his Yale seniors to predict the outcome of his experiment, majority of which stated participants would cease the experiment once the learner expressed pain. The unexpected results provoked new interpretations of understanding behaviour in the real world such as explaining genocide, in particular the Holocaust. However, Milgrams conclusion on how his findings correlated with the Nazi perpetrators in Germany was criticised by Mandel (1998), claiming the situations were dissimilar. As demonstrated in the self-condition experiment, when participants were able to choose the level of shock, they tended to go for less painful ones where as the perpetrators tortured people willingly. It suggests that they were doing much more than simply obeying orders. He argues obedience alone cannot explain the actions of the perpetrators, other factors should be considered. Lutsky (1995, cited in Mastroianni, 2002) would agree with Mandel, stating the behaviour of the perpetrators could have been explored more thoroughly if it were not mainly justified with obedience explanations.

Despite the disagreements regarding Milgrams explanation on the Holocaust, there is evidence to support that high levels of obedience can be obtained other than in a laboratory setting. For example, Hofling et al. (1966, cited in Rank & Jacobson, 1977) illustrated blind obedience in nurses to an authoritative figure (i.e. doctor). On the other hand, Rank and Jacobsons (1977) questions the ecological validity in their study after replicating it with a few variations. They found lower obedient rates when the nurses were allowed to discuss with others and knew the name of the drug they were ordered to administer. This shows how ignorance of the situation correlates with higher amounts of obedience; perhaps due to participants having no schema to respond to such a situation, therefore it increases their susceptibility to obeying (Hogg & Vaughan, 2008). Vast amount of literature has debated over the ethical issues surrounding Milgrams research, asking the major question of whether the same results would have been achieved if it were not for Milgrams specific methods. The answer for this may be yes. Replicating Milgrams experiments has not been completely unachievable, as demonstrated by Burgers (2009) partial replication, which supports Milgrams findings and displays the same situational forces acting on participants behaviour.

There is no doubt that Milgrams research has contributed greatly to our understanding of obedience. Despite certain ambiguities in his findings, his research has made us acutely aware of the underlying power obedience is drawn from, it highlights how external influences is significant in affecting human behaviour (Blass, 1991) and more importantly, Milgram was right to study such a vital component that our society heavily relies on. Ferenczi (1916 cited in Benjamin & Simpson, 2009) stated obedience is deeply ingrained since the beginning of childhood, thus considered

it almost innate. Because obedience is a large part of our behaviour in terms of society, it is important that the findings are able to be generalised to the population, meaning it should be high in ecological validity. Milgrams research has provoked certain changes in research design and methods, consequently leading to more natural experiments being used in order to increase validity (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). The ethical issues in Milgrams research have generated much negative criticism, almost preventing a near exact replication, but this does not necessarily preclude further research. Although we may never retrieve the exact same findings as Milgram did, his studies have surely provided enough impact to inspire other researchers to further our understanding on obedience. As Burger (2009) demonstrates, replications are possible whereby ethical rules do not have to be compromised.

References
Benjamin, L., & Simpson, J. (2009). The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram's obedience studies on personality and social psychology. American Psychologist, 64(1), 12-19

Bickman, L., (1974). Social roles and uniforms. Psych Today. (50)
Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behaviour in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 398-413 Blass, T. (2009). From New Haven to Santa Clara: A historical perspective on the Milgram obedience experiments. American Psychologist, 64(1), 37-45. Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 111

Hogg, M. and Vaughan, G. (2008). Social Psychology (5th Ed.). Pearson Publishing: Prentice Hall.
Mandel, D. R. (1998). The obedience alibi: Milgram's account of the Holocaust reconsidered. Analyse & Kritik: Zeitschrift fr Sozialwissenschaften, 20, 74-94. Mastroianni, G. (2002). Milgram and the Holocaust: A re-examination. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 22(2), 158-173.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378 Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row 8

Rank, G. S., & Jacobson, C. K. (1977). Hospital Nurses Compliance with Medication Overdose Orders: A Failure to Replicate. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 18 92) 188-193.