original article here (edited by RW 10/25/10)
http://clinicallypsyched.com/milgrim-test-replicated-electric-shock-obedience-psychology-social.html
This article is about replicating an experiment done by Stanely Milgram in 1961. It was a social experiment about obedience and asked for the participants to act as "teachers" and "learners". Teachers had to administer electric shock therapy on the learner. Groups of learners and teachers would administer shocks that they believed were real but the machine was fake. "Milgram found that, after hearing the learner's first cries of pain at 150 volts, 82.5 percent of participants continued administering shocks; of those, 79 percent continued to the shock generator's end, at 450 volts." This experiment is very interesting when dealing with obedience and authority. It's hard to believe humans are so accepting of authority and social obedience. Has there ever been a situation in which you had to conform to a practice which you did not agree with?
Stanley's Milgram's experiment proves how all of us are conformists. If you disagree, think about this situation: Let's say everyone in your class wants the final exam on Wednesday, except you are the only one who wants it on Tuesday. If you disagree, everyone will feel negative and hostile towards you. Will you conform or refuse? To be socially accepted, we sometimes have to conform to society's rules. Also, we conform in the most basic ways: we are conforming when we wear clothing, brush our teeth, and even when we chew with our mouths closed. However, I realize that the Stanley Milgram experiment was of course, a far more intense and frightening view of obedience. I believe the participants were so paralyzed by their fear that their brain was completely and emotionally hijacked. It is incredible how we submit so easily to an authority figure-could this be a cultural or universal phenomenon?
ReplyDeleteGiven the results of the original experiment with regards to the 150-volt cutoff, I think this study comes close enough to Milgram's original experiment to prove the point. I think a lot of people still look at Milgram's results and think, "I would never do that; I know blind obedience is wrong; I'm independent enough to think for myself." Clearly, that assumption is wrong, and in response to Grace's question, I think (with minor individualist/collectivist fluctuations) that these results will prove universal. All humans have an instinct to please those in power, and I think that drive is stronger than most people give it credit for.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, though, ethically, whether participants who administered the highest shock level later felt better about themselves when they complained strenuously vs. barely objected at all. That is, would it be morally preferable to know that what you're doing is wrong, and do it anyway, or to not even recognize the wrongness and go along out of pure obedience?
I was thinking along the same lines as Judy. I agree that fundamentally the experiments were the same, ethically I agree with Burger's experiment more. I think letting people think they were going so far past 150 volts is a bit excessive. I also agree with Burger going through the participants and getting rid of the ones that would be particularly sensitive to the effects of the experiment. Being put through this could do some serious psychological damage to a person! Can you imagine going through the rest of your life thinking that you tortured someone? Could you live with the guilt and the constant what if questions?
ReplyDeleteI do think this Milgram;s experiment and Burger's experiments were very useful in the study of obedience, especially Milgram's being done relatively close to World War II and the Nazi trials.
There do seem to be several essential differences between Burger's experiment and Milgram's original study--obviously, the voltage ceiling was a lot lower and the subjects were told that they could back out whenever they wanted and still get compensated. I think it is this second change that is most telling. In Milgram's study, with the combination of subjects' sense of being roped in once the experiment had started and the language the confederates used to get subjects to continue--'you must continue,' 'the experiment requires that you continue,' etc.--the participants might as well have been forced to keep going. Because the subjects of Burger's study were fully aware that they could stop if they wanted to, these findings seem to reveal that much more about the power a person's instinct to conform has over them and is therefore that much more disturbing.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with some of the researchers who said that Burger's experiment could not possibly replicate meaningful results because it was much too different. Although Burger had his reasons for changing the test (ethics standards, University funding), I believe the power of Milgram's findings lies in the willingness of people to continue further, to 450 volts. I don't think 150 should have been the cap, since there could be a chance that someone would go a few increments more, and that would be a variable worth analyzing.
ReplyDeleteDespite this, however, its fascinating that the percentages haven't changed much over 45 years of societal changes. And the fact that there is no difference between women and men's obedience proves that this behavioral pattern is a deeply-ingrained way that our brain works-- its only natural to follow the orders of someone with perceived authority, because since birth we have been conditioned to follow the rules in school, in public, in a family. This added to the uniform of the experimenter along with the tone of the vocal command to continue the shocks would intimidate anyone into proceeding, just so that they would not be going against someone who is seemingly in charge.
This experiment really surprised me at first I couldn’t believe people actually took part in this experiment. But after thinking about the situation in which the teachers were placed in I could see why they took part. I see people conforming to situations all the time. People conform to others and society so that they are accepted and fit in with social groups. However this experiment took it to the extremes. In this case I feel that the authority figure had a powerful hold over the participants. I wonder if this would happen in other extreme cases.
ReplyDeleteAlso I think that both experiments were fundamentally the same but I personally agree with Burgers experiment. Burgers restriction of only using 150 volts and eliminating the people he thought couldn’t with stand the experiment was a great adaption to the earlier experiment. Using 450 volts is very extreme!
I agree that the discrepancies between Milgrim's study and the replication study prevented it from producing findings as conclusive as they could have been. However, this doesn't undermine the significance of the study in revealing how far people are willing to go in order to appease authority and demonstrate blind obedience. It is interesting to see attempts to test the limits of what people will do to be seen in a favorable light by those in authority. Furthermore, it illustrates that while it is easy to distance ourselves from those whose actions are deemed socially abominable, such as Nazi experimenters, the fact is that the tendencies which cause people to behave in such ways are inherent in all human beings.
ReplyDeleteThe study focused on the conflict between obedience to authority, and personal conscience. It honestly did not surprise me that people were so willing to conform to the situation that they were put in. I feel as though a large part in reason to why people conformed was because they were told to do these specific actions from an "authority" figure. People are more inclined to obey to a person "in charge," such as a teacher. If a random person, who was not an authority figure, was to tell one of the test participants to shock, and put a person in an uncomfortable position, they wouldn't be as inclined to obey. Both of the experiments are successful and useful in expressing the role of obedience, and the impact it has on other individuals.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that the result of Burger's study can be compared to that of Milgram's to show that the obedience rates have not been significantly changed for more than 40 years, because there are many differences between the two studies that could influence the results; for example, the exclusion of the participants who had negative reaction to the procedure, and the differences in maximum amount of voltage limit. However, it really surprised me that, in Burger's experiment, even though the participants could withdraw from the experiment at any time they wanted to stop, which meant they were not really forced to continue to torture "the learners," majority of them continued till the electricity reached to 150 volts. This fact might suggest that people can become so ignorant to others when they can justify their acts under the guise of authority (or majority). Sometimes people do morally unacceptable things when they are in group or when there is someone who should take the responsibility of initiating the acts on behalf of the group.
ReplyDeleteThe amount that people will go to please the person in charge, especially in this study, is insane. Why would one want to subject themselves to this kind of discomfort, when they can just as easily stop and still get paid? The idea of obedience is held so strongly in our society. Since we were born, we've been taught to listen to our parents and teachers and do exactly what they say, otherwise there will be consequences. I think that people in this experiment wanted to prove something to themselves as well. The "student" wanted to convince the "teacher" that they could surpass their expectations. Pleasing the authoritarian figure was so important to these people that they were willing to go to the extremes just to prove their obedience.
ReplyDeleteSince Burger's experiment was far more intense than Milgrims, I think the results are more successful because it goes to show the extremes one will go to when they are told what to do by a person in a higher position than them.
Even though part of Burger's ethics-adjusted experiment was to guarantee the $50 stipend, I think the participants continued to shock the confederate because of the authority figure telling them to. If someone who appears to be an expert constantly tells you the person getting shocked is in no real danger, you tend to trust them. A more interesting version of this experiment to test conformity specifically and not just obedience would be to have a panel of confederates shocking people remorselessly, and only one "teacher" not in on the experiment. It would be interesting if the panel of confident shocking "teachers" would have the same effect as one trusted expert.
ReplyDeleteI think that this study and the original Milgram study offer up more than just the fact that we are all “eager to please” or feel we need to conform. I think that several other questions can be raised from this experiment. Further questions/topics that stem from this research could include: Why do we feel the need to please in regards to what that says about our personal self esteem/self image/ image of ourselves with in a group. I also agree with Katelin in regards to her comment on the guilt that people who were a part of this would then have to suffer. Another question that could be raised is why do we think we are so “special” or “above” committing these types of acts ourselves. In addition, it is interesting to think about the incentive that was given here (50 dollars), and why even with knowing that this incentive would not be taken away if they withdrew at any time, did these participants charge on…so to speak.
ReplyDeleteThese kinds of experiments of obedience have always scared me a bit. Just thinking of how far one person will go just because they are told to do so or because they will receive a reward feels like it shouldn't happen when there is a need to put another person in danger and/or pain.
ReplyDeleteEmily brings up the question "Why do we think we are so 'special' or 'above' committing these types of acts ourselves?" Most people would agree that causing another human any kind of harm should not be done. We are able to reason, after all, and with that ability we are able to go against the obedient nature of things. Whether we do go against it is, apparently, related to the reward we get.
I think the experiment was a very harsh yet interesting way of studying obedience. I also don't believe that Burger's experiment could produce relevant results because of all the different factors between his and Milgram's. I think it is astonishing how regularly people conform. When people hear the word "conform" they generally do no think that it applies to their own behaviors. People would most likely respond to the term by saying that "they are individuals. That they march to the beat of their own drum". This experiment obviously proves most peoples opinions to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI guess people nowadays are still as obedience as before. Even though the top voltage was 150 volts which is much lower than in Milgram’s experiment, Burger successfully demonstrate pretty much the same result Milgram got. People who execute the shock kept on going, even when they know the fact that they can leave whenever they want and still get the 50 dollars payment. Most likely is because they think the authority is the one who’s going to take the responsibility, so they just simply do their job and keep going till the end.
ReplyDelete