Electric Shock Experiment

Background of the Experiment 

The case reflects on a group of participants, in an experiment, who are divided into two groups, which consist of teachers and learners. The two groups of participants are put in different rooms, but the teachers can hear the learners as they answer questions. The expectation is that every time a learner gives a wrong answer to the question, the teacher is expected to administer an electric shock. The electric shocks range from mild to very severe, which means that the persons receiving the clashes are likely to experience serious harm. When administering the shocks, the teachers are expected to ensure that the level of excitement is much more severe when compared to the last. The teachers have the authority of opting out of the study at any time during the experiment.

Willingness to Administer Severe or Potentially Lethal Shocks 

On the question of the percentage of teachers that would be willing to administer severe, potentially lethal shocks to a learner in this experimental, I would argue that between 60% and 75% of the teachers would be willing. Alexandre, & David (2018), in the Milgram experiment, indicates that although a significant number of persons may be willing to administer severe or potentially lethal electric shocks when expected, only 65% of participants would be ready to go through with the actual administration. The reduction in the number of those willing to administer lethal shocks is driven by the fact that some of these persons may not be ready or willing to see others suffer potential impacts resulting from their actions (Hollander, 2017). However, it must also be noted that a majority of those involved in the administration of the electric shocks would feel very uncomfortable during the actual process of administration (Abbott, 2016).

I hold the view that although the participants would be willing to administer the lethal shocks, they would show possibilities of not being comfortable with such occurrences. Weatherall & Hollander (2018) indicate that the Milgram experiment showed that participants involved in the administration of lethal shocks showed signs that included trembling, sweating, and biting lips. Hollander & Maynard (2016) indicate that some of the persons showed signs of laughing nervously attributed to the fact that it was hard for them to determine the implications of their administration of shocks. It is important to note that although the number of those willing to administer potentially lethal shocks is limited, the number of those willing to administer low levels of shocks is notably higher (Grzyb, & Dolinski, 2017). Gibson, Blenkinsopp, Johnstone, & Marshall (2018) indicate that all the participants will be willing to administer the electric shocks that they believed were not, in any way, lethal to the participants of the Milgram experiment.

Another critical aspect that I believe would be noted from the experiment is the fact that although 65% would be willing to continue with the investigation, some of would question the experiment at one point or another. Yükselbaba (2017) indicates that during the Milgram experiment, each of the participants that were willing to administer the final massive 450-volt shock had questioned the validity of the experiment. Most of the participants are only willing to continue with the experiment after they have been assured by the experimenter (Doliński, Grzyb, Folwarczny, Grzybała, Krzyszycha, Martynowska, & Trojanowski, 2017). The assurance given by the experimenter seeks to provide them with a sense of assurance of the fact that their administration of the shocks would not have any major impacts on those receiving the electric shocks (Russell, 2018).

On the other hand, I believe that some of the participants, a little less than half of the total number of participants, would ask for the experiment to be terminated. Schmidt (2019) indicates that approximately 28% of the participants involved in the Milgram experiment indicated that they believed that the experiment ought to be terminated. The participants that were not involved in the administration of the final electric shock in the Milgram experiment did not insist on the termination of the experiment (Hollander, 2015). That seems to suggest that those willing to administer electric shocks that would have potentially lethal outcomes also believed in the fact that the experiment ought to be terminated. Mitina & Voronov (2017) indicate that the participants, involved in the administration of the final electric shock, showed a higher level of compassion when compared to those not willing to administer the potentially lethal shock.

The difference in Administration of Shocks 

On the question of whether the figures would differ if the teachers heard the increasing sound of distress from the learners, followed by silence, even if the administrator kept on prompting them to continue administering the shocks as silence indicates a wrong answer, I believe that the figures would reduce significantly. Brannigan & Perry (2016) indicate that the Milgram experiment sought to establish if there was any major difference if persons would hear increasing sounds of distress suggesting that the change in the number of persons willing to administer the lethal shocks would be significant. That means that the number of persons that would be willing to administer electric shocks that they believe would be potentially lethal would reduce to between 31% and 45%.

Pavlenko (2019) indicates that the proximity of the teachers and the learners in the Milgram experiment played a critical role in determining those willing to administer an electric shock that they knew would be potentially lethal. The difference arises from the fact that the teachers’ compassion levels go up significantly due to the sounds of distress every time they administer the electric shock (Hollander & Turowetz, 2018). The expectation is that those willing to administer shocks that they believed would cause more sounds of distress would reduce drastically. Gibson, & Millard (2018) indicate that a majority of those involved in the Milgram experiment indicated every time they would hear the persons crying out in distress as a result of an electric should they experienced a lower level of connection towards the experience. That means that their desire to administer further electric shocks would reduce significantly; thus, creating a situation where the ultimate number of persons administering shocks would reduce.

Haslam, Reicher, & Millard (2015) take note of the fact the reduction in the number of persons willing to administer electric shocks based on the sounds of distress is driven by the fact that these persons are controlled by what they hear. Each time a learner would make a sound, the outcome is that the participant administering the shock would question whether the other person was fine; thus, suggesting the possibility of compassion (Bègue, Duke, Courbet, & Oberlé, 2017). In the long-term, this seeks to suggest that although the participants may be willing to administer shocks when they do not hear any sounds of distress, this changes significantly when dealing with cases where the learners make sounds (Kaposi, 2017). That leads to my conclusion that indeed, the percentage of participants willing to administer the potentially lethal electric shock would reduce significantly.

References

Abbott, A. (2016). Modern Milgram experiment sheds light on the power of authority. Nature News ,  530 (7591), 394.

Alexandre, L., & David, B. (2018). The logic of submission and commandment: from S. Milgram experiment to the slogan power. Psicologia Clínica ,  30 (1), 61-80.

Bègue, L., Duke, A., Courbet, D., & Oberlé, D. (2017). Values and indirect noncompliance in a Milgram-like paradigm.  Social Influence ,  12 (1), 29-40.

Brannigan, A., & Perry, G. (2016). Milgram, Genocide and Bureaucracy: A Post-Weberian Perspective.  State Crime Journal ,  5 (2), 287-305.

Dalton, A. (2018). Up close 4: The forgotten experiment.  Good Reading , (Apr 2018), 44.

Doliński, D., Grzyb, T., Folwarczny, M., Grzybała, P., Krzyszycha, K., Martynowska, K., & Trojanowski, J. (2017). Would you deliver an electric shock in 2015? Obedience in the experimental paradigm developed by Stanley Milgram in the 50 years following the original studies.  Social Psychological and Personality Science ,  8 (8), 927-933.

Gibson, S., & Millard, K. (2018). The women who defied the Milgram experiment.  British Academy blog .

Gibson, S., Blenkinsopp, G., Johnstone, E., & Marshall, A. (2018). Just following orders? The rhetorical invocation of ‘obedience' in Stanley Milgram's post‐experiment interviews. European Journal of Social Psychology ,  48 (5), 585-599.

Grzyb, T., & Dolinski, D. (2017). Beliefs about Obedience Levels in Studies Conducted within the Milgram Paradigm: Better than Average Effect and Comparisons of Typical Behaviors by Residents of Various Nations.  Frontiers in psychology ,  8 , 1632.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Millard, K. (2015). Shock treatment: Using immersive digital realism to restage and re-examine Milgram’s ‘Obedience to Authority’research.  PloS one ,  10 (3), e109015.

Hollander, M. M. (2015). The repertoire of resistance: Non‐compliance with directives in Milgram's ‘obedience' experiments. British Journal of Social Psychology ,  54 (3), 425-444.

Hollander, M. M. (2017).  Resistance to Authority: Methodological Innovations and New Lessons from the Milgram Experiment . The University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Hollander, M. M., & Maynard, D. W. (2016). Do Unto Others...? Methodological Advance and Self-Versus Other-Attentive Resistance in Milgram’s “Obedience” Experiments.  Social Psychology Quarterly ,  79 (4), 355-375.

Hollander, M. M., & Turowetz, J. (2018). Multiple compliant processes: A reply to Haslam and Reicher on the engaged followership explanation of ‘obedience' in Milgram's experiments. British Journal of Social Psychology ,  57 (2), 301-309.

Kaposi, D. (2017). The resistance experiments: Morality, authority and obedience in Stanley Milgram's account.  Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour ,  47 (4), 382-401.

Miller, A. (2016). Why are the Milgram Obedience Experiments still so extraordinarily famous-and controversial.  The Social Psychology of Good and Evil, 185-223.

Mitina, O. V., & Voronov, A. Y. (2017). Non-triviality of the results of the Milgram field experiment in Moscow and New York subway. RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics ,  14 (3), 255-272.

Oppenheimer, M. (2015). Designing obedience in the lab: Milgram’s shock simulator and human factors engineering.  Theory & Psychology ,  25 (5), 599-621.

Oppenheimer, M. R. (2015).  The dramaturgical devices of Stanley Milgram's obedience to authority experiment  (Doctoral dissertation, Birkbeck, University of London).

Pavlenko, V. N. (2019). S. Milgram’s experiment through the lens of historical psychology.  Social Psychology and Society ,  10 (3), 5-18.

Russell, N. (2018). How Milgram Ensured Most Participants Completed the First Official Experiment. In  Understanding Willing Participants, Volume 1  (pp. 55-78). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Russell, N. (2018). The Origins and Evolution of Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiments. In  Understanding Willing Participants, Volume 1  (pp. 37-54). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Schmidt, J. F. (2019). Milgram (1967): The Small World Problem. In  Schlüsselwerke der Netzwerkforschung  (pp. 407-410). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.

Weatherall, A., & Hollander, M. M. (2018).  Using Discursive Psychology and Conversation Analysis to Study “Obedience” and “Defiance” in Milgram’s Experiments . SAGE Publications Ltd.

Yükselbaba, Ü. (2017). Milgram experiment about authority and obedience.  İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası ,  75 (1), 227-270.