Milgram’s Experiment
Milgram’s experiment was one of the most famous experiments in Psychology, which aimed to find out the relationship and conflict between the obedience of what we are told to do and what our conscience says. This experiment was conducted by Stanley Milgram, who was a professor at Yale University.
Milgram focused on the defense offered by those accused in World War II in the trials. The defense provided was mostly related to the obedience that they were exhibiting- following their senior’s orders
They selected the participants using Newspaper Ads. The only criteria were that they needed to be aged from 20 to 50, and they need to give them one hour of their time. In one study, they also experimented with women. They paid the participants 4.5$ for showing up, which included a 50 cent carfare.
This experiment was planned to be conducted by selecting groups of two people, each in which one was the teacher, and the other was the learner.
The twist was that the learner was always one of Stanley’s confederates.
Both of them were given two slips of paper, one which said teacher and another which supposedly said learner who was, in fact, a Teacher.
Both of them were taken to two different rooms, which only let them communicate which each other. The learner was strapped onto a shock machine. The rules were that the participant would read out a word with which the learner had to make a pair with four choices given to him. If answered wrongly, they would be given shocks starting from 15V, which would keep increasing by 15V every time he made a mistake.
The teacher, before the start of the experiment, was given a sample shock of 45V to demonstrate that the shocks were painful.
The teacher had shock switches in front of him, which he had to administer and keep increasing the frequency of the shock every time he made a mistake.
The teacher got out of the machine before it began and brought a tape recorder that contained prerecorded responses that were played out.
After the shock level reached 150V, the learner started to scream, Get me out of here, please.
He kept on making mistakes . After 330V, the learner did not respond. The researchers told the participants in a scripted manner to continue increasing the shocks. They only used four sentences,
1-Please continue.
2-The experiment requires that you continue.
3-It is essential that you continue.
4-You have no other choice. You must go on.
They also used some other specific sentences when the teacher asked whether this is causing any permanent physical harm to the learner, and even when they said that the learner wants to stop.
These sentences do not offer much thinking space to the teacher.
Stanley surveyed the experiment by asking a few questions to three groups of people, Psychology students, Middle-class adults, and Psychiatrists.
He asked them if they feel that the participants will increase the shock up to 450V, which almost guarantees death.
Hundred percent of these people answered in the negative. They then asked them how much percentage of the people they think will increase it up to 450V. They said that it might be around 1–3 %.
The actual results were quite contrary to everyone’s expectations. Some people refused to continue after 150V, even after the experimenters insisted on them going on.
Some others kept going on, under the influence of the experimenters, even after hearing the wails of the learners. This demonstrates a dangerous reality.
Not 10 or 20 percent, but 65% of the people went till 450V, even after they didn’t receive any responses after 330V! All of them went past 300V.
Two-thirds of the men shocked the other person to death even after knowing that death is almost guaranteed. They all thought they shocked a person to death as a part of a psychological experiment.
Many variations of the experiment were performed after the success of this, in which similar results were observed.
Many people believed that this experiment was related to Holocaust perpetrators. They thought that they obeyed their superiors, but some disapprove of this.
Many had the chance to stop these killings as much as they could in their capacity, but they chose not too. This leads to meaning that they wanted to kill Jews as they had a hatred for them. This was simply an opportunity for them to express their hatred. Hitler used this hatred to achieve what he wanted. They obeyed their superiors because this was favoring their interests and not only because they needed to obey them.
This leads to an open-ended conclusion. Do people inherently have a mentality that promotes destructive obedience? Is this related to our evolution during which we needed to kill to survive? Is this happening due to the atmosphere around us?
Research has given a partial answer.
Since society has some rules, people are in control to some extent. If horrific stuff like murdering, raping, etc. wasn’t illegal, I’m sure many would not hesitate from committing such heinous crimes. Even now, we know the reality. This is the disturbing truth about society. We need laws and rules to control us. We don’t have control over ourselves. If someone gives us the authority to do something terrible, many won’t hesitate to do so. This is not to say that these participants want to commit horrific crimes or that the participants have a criminal mindset, but I think there sure is a connection.
A recent study conducted by Jerry Burger led to the conclusion that if given social support, most participants did not continue to administer the shocks. This leads to a thought that social solidarity serves as a kind of defense against destructive obedience. In one of Milgram’s experiment itself, the subjects refused to administer the shocks after some of Stanley’s confederates who acted as teachers defied the researchers. The other actual participants got some support. Hence they stopped. This wasn’t, unfortunately, recorded in two of the recent studies conducted.
Though accomplices intervened, it did not affect the obedience of the actual participants. This is terrifying in today’s world.
In today’s society, its findings are significant. Today, the power of authority is increased and not decreased. This was also proved when social support couldn’t stop them from disobeying authority.
People are influenced by the ones around them. They don’t want to be the first person to do anything. People want to conform with the majority of the group on which they are in. Their actions are subconsciously influenced by the activities of the group. For example-Many wouldn’t hesitate to throw garbage in an open place. This is because we are not responsible for our actions there. Someone else is. The same lot wouldn’t throw garbage in their homes since they feel that their house is their responsibility.
People obey authority because they know that it is responsible for their actions. I.e.- they are simply carrying out the authority’s will. The consequences of these actions have to be borne by their superiors and not the ones carrying it out.
This has some connection with people conforming with those around them. They are a group with similar opinions. The majority don’t want to be in the minority. They want their actions to be supported by others. Individualism is being challenged. It is awkward to be the odd one out. This is not to say conformity is completely bad. It has its positives and negatives.
There are various examples in our society and culture such as -
Untouchability- This practice existed long back in India, and it almost ceases to exist now. It is a practice of treating lower caste people as outcasts. This was passed on from generation to generation; hence it was like obeying an authoritative figure.
Animal Sacrifice- Animal Sacrifice is a practice that still exists in India. It is done by people who ought to please gods. It is practiced in many religions.
Khap Panchayat- They are a group that gives orders for the social boycott of people who violate norms. Society by large complies with it, and they inflict social boycott. This exists in our present-day society.
Bureaucrats- Many of them obey illegal orders of politicians, which harm society and people. They know that it is against moral values but are still compelled to do so. This practice has been harming our nation to a large extent, and the time has come for a change.
