Milgram Obedience Experiment: Authority, Situationism, and Evil

Introduction: The Question of Obedience

The horrors of war have been discussed by researchers and historians for decades. Ever since the First and Second World Wars, people have wondered how others could commit the acts they did for as long as they did. The Nazis, for example, did atrocious things to the Jewish people and continued to do so until the end of World War II. The selected study — the Milgram Experiment, also known as the Milgram Obedience Study — demonstrates how people could commit such heinous acts merely on the basis of obeying an authority figure. That is to say, roughly 65% of people are prone to obeying orders from an authority figure regardless of their personality traits, and will perform virtually any act asked of them.

Overview of the Milgram Experiment

The Milgram Experiment examined why people obeyed authority figures. It was a series of social psychology experiments involving the administration of painful electric shocks to participants for giving wrong answers. The study was conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram. While the participants administering the shocks believed they were testing someone else, the study in reality focused on them — specifically, whether or not they would follow the demands placed upon them. The range of participants was diverse; they came from a variety of occupations and had varying levels of education.

Although a few participants did not obey because they found shocking a human being at more than 150 volts to be inhumane, 65% of them went all the way to 450 volts and continued to flip the switch even when they showed no desire to perform the task. Twenty-six of the participants flipped the 450-volt switch three times. Although some stuttered, sweated, bit their lips, and protested, they completed the final phase of the study, demonstrating that people can perform what would be considered evil acts when placed in a subordinate role.

The study reveals that people are predisposed to a certain level of obedience and will obey anyone they perceive as an authority figure. Not all participants obeyed, but considering the situations people are placed in — for example, Nazi soldiers in Germany — perhaps more than 65% would have committed such acts, either to avoid punishment themselves or out of a greater willingness to defer to a higher authority.

Altered States of Consciousness and Compliant Behavior

When discussing different states of consciousness, it is worth considering what the experiment revealed about participants who were willing to act when the responsibility was perceived to fall on the authority figure rather than on themselves. People almost remove themselves entirely when committing acts regarded as evil, simply by altering their consciousness and placing all responsibility for the victim's suffering onto someone else. This phenomenon occurs frequently in the context of abuse: an abuser may claim they cannot recall the acts they committed, saying either that it never happened or that they were not in their right mind.

Another noteworthy observation was that one participant experienced laughing fits while administering the painful electric shocks. He kept laughing as if trying to prevent himself from fully experiencing what was happening to the man receiving the shocks — and to himself in that situation. This may represent an altered state of consciousness. Some participants even had seizures, providing another indication of this kind of psychological phenomenon.

Psychological disorders sometimes involve individuals experiencing an out-of-body moment in which they observe themselves performing an action, similar to a fugue state. Many criminals have used this kind of explanation when attempting to account for their crimes: "I don't remember. I just woke up with a knife in my hand. I was outside of my body when it happened. I couldn't control myself." Whatever logic they apply to their actions, they almost always express some form of altered state of mind. Whether or not such claims are valid is a separate question.

Conclusion

Situationists examined traits like extraversion and how they played a part in different situations. While they assumed certain outcomes, this personality trait was not usable in predicting compliance. Situationists broadly hold that general traits do not exist as meaningful predictors of behavior, with the exception of intelligence. People react primarily due to the circumstances they find themselves in rather than their underlying personality. As Miller (2014) concludes, "The major legacy continues to be the situational thesis that serious harm may be perpetrated upon protesting victims by ordinary, good people under the influence of authority" (p. 558). If a compassionate person feels guilty for electrocuting someone, that compassion does not prevent them from doing so; rather, it is obedience to — or defiance of — authority that determines the outcome.

References

Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 398–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.398

Miller, A. (2014). The explanatory value of Milgram's obedience experiments: A contemporary appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 70(3), 558–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josi.12078