“What important questions about obedience have been left unanswered by
Milgram’s research?”
Candidate number: 232953
, Milgram’s obedience demonstrations ‘shocked’ psychologists and the public alike; in fact, his studies
are ‘perhaps the most provocative set of experiments in social science’ (Miller, 1986). Even now,
almost 60 years later, Milgram’s Obedience to Authority studies are alluded to frequently in films and
songs and continue to feature in psychology journals (Blass, 2004). However, it is arguable that
Milgram’s experiments raise as many questions as they answer. Why did so many people obey? Why
did others disobey? And what does this mean for society? Such questions will be explored in this
essay.
Before tackling these questions, it’s important to understand the basics of Milgram’s obedience
studies. In short, an experimenter requests that the participant administer an intensifying sequence of
(supposedly genuine) electric shocks to a learner every time they make a mistake in an alleged
memory and learning test. 65% of participants completed this test, delivering what would have been
lethal shocks to the learner (Reicher, Haslam, & Miller, 2014). Such results were met with horror.
Previously, it had been widely believed that “only a pathological fringe… [would] proceed to the end
of the shock board” (Milgram, 1974). Milgram’s findings destroyed this comforting assumption,
revealing that normal people can -and will- harm others. But why did these average individuals
commit such atrocious acts?
Unfortunately, Milgram's (1974) primary explanation of participant obedience, the agentic state, is
widely regarded as weak and unconvincing. It argues that the experimenter exerts pressure upon the
teachers, reducing them to helpless automatons fixated upon fulfilling their duty to the experimenter
(Blass, 2004). Alas, there’s no empirical evidence to suggest that participants entered any such state
(Mantell & Panzarella, 1976). Additionally, when watching films of the study it quickly becomes
evident that participants aren’t fixated solely on the experimenter. Instead, they are aware of and
respond emotionally to the learner’s exclamations of pain. Furthermore, Milgram’s agentic state
doesn’t elucidate the differing obedience levels found in the different conditions (Reicher, Haslam, &
Smith, 2012). Therefore, Milgram’s explanation of obedience is widely disregarded, leaving
psychologists wondering: why did so many participants obey?
It can be argued that situational factors underpin the obedience effect. One such factor is the task’s
incremental nature, which is apparent in the gradually increasing intensity of the shocks delivered.
Participants began with the 15-volt switch, a mild shock, and progressed in 15-volt steps to the lethal
450-volt switch (Gilbert, 1981). By increasing the demand size gradually, Milgram employed the
‘foot-in-the-door’ tactic, whereby an individual is more likely to agree to a big request if they’ve
complied with a smaller request first. This method is driven by human consistency needs (Cialdini &
Goldstein, 2004), which, in Milgram’s study, makes declining to flick the 195-volt lever immediately
after flicking the 180-volt lever extremely difficult for participants. After all, had participants been
asked to start by delivering a 450-volt shock, they’d have been unlikely to obey (Burger, 2009).
Milgram’s research?”
Candidate number: 232953
, Milgram’s obedience demonstrations ‘shocked’ psychologists and the public alike; in fact, his studies
are ‘perhaps the most provocative set of experiments in social science’ (Miller, 1986). Even now,
almost 60 years later, Milgram’s Obedience to Authority studies are alluded to frequently in films and
songs and continue to feature in psychology journals (Blass, 2004). However, it is arguable that
Milgram’s experiments raise as many questions as they answer. Why did so many people obey? Why
did others disobey? And what does this mean for society? Such questions will be explored in this
essay.
Before tackling these questions, it’s important to understand the basics of Milgram’s obedience
studies. In short, an experimenter requests that the participant administer an intensifying sequence of
(supposedly genuine) electric shocks to a learner every time they make a mistake in an alleged
memory and learning test. 65% of participants completed this test, delivering what would have been
lethal shocks to the learner (Reicher, Haslam, & Miller, 2014). Such results were met with horror.
Previously, it had been widely believed that “only a pathological fringe… [would] proceed to the end
of the shock board” (Milgram, 1974). Milgram’s findings destroyed this comforting assumption,
revealing that normal people can -and will- harm others. But why did these average individuals
commit such atrocious acts?
Unfortunately, Milgram's (1974) primary explanation of participant obedience, the agentic state, is
widely regarded as weak and unconvincing. It argues that the experimenter exerts pressure upon the
teachers, reducing them to helpless automatons fixated upon fulfilling their duty to the experimenter
(Blass, 2004). Alas, there’s no empirical evidence to suggest that participants entered any such state
(Mantell & Panzarella, 1976). Additionally, when watching films of the study it quickly becomes
evident that participants aren’t fixated solely on the experimenter. Instead, they are aware of and
respond emotionally to the learner’s exclamations of pain. Furthermore, Milgram’s agentic state
doesn’t elucidate the differing obedience levels found in the different conditions (Reicher, Haslam, &
Smith, 2012). Therefore, Milgram’s explanation of obedience is widely disregarded, leaving
psychologists wondering: why did so many participants obey?
It can be argued that situational factors underpin the obedience effect. One such factor is the task’s
incremental nature, which is apparent in the gradually increasing intensity of the shocks delivered.
Participants began with the 15-volt switch, a mild shock, and progressed in 15-volt steps to the lethal
450-volt switch (Gilbert, 1981). By increasing the demand size gradually, Milgram employed the
‘foot-in-the-door’ tactic, whereby an individual is more likely to agree to a big request if they’ve
complied with a smaller request first. This method is driven by human consistency needs (Cialdini &
Goldstein, 2004), which, in Milgram’s study, makes declining to flick the 195-volt lever immediately
after flicking the 180-volt lever extremely difficult for participants. After all, had participants been
asked to start by delivering a 450-volt shock, they’d have been unlikely to obey (Burger, 2009).
