Stanley Milgram is an American social psychologist who is widely known for his contribution to the history of social psychology . Consequently, he is considered the most cited psychologist in history ( Haggbloom et al. , 2002 ). Having taught psychology at Yale and Harvard University, Milgram is remembered for his controversial experiment on obedience, the small world experiment , and the concept of six degrees of separation. It is believed that the motivation behind the obedience experiment were the events surrounding the Holocaust , and most notably the trial of Adolf Eichmann. Rather than quot ing and acknowledg ing the contributions of other psychologists, Milgram occasionally conducted his research on ideas and concepts he thought were not exhaustive or that attracted controversy. Scholars in psychology recognize Milgram as the man who helped uncover the truths about human nature and the broad concept of humanity. Milgram is also remembered for developing cyranoids , which are interactive hybrid social agents. Cyranoids eventually found extensive use in studies aimed at exploring multiple aspects of self -perception and s ocial p erception. This research paper is aimed at discussing Stanley Milgram and his obedience experiment. Likewise, the paper will highlight the effects of the experiment on the people.
Several leading questions informed the formulation of the obedience experiment . For instance, why do most people find it difficult to obey orders from authorities until they experience some degree of coercion? Why do people ignore existing rules and regulations but portray high adherence when in the presence of the reinforcing body ? In an attempt to provide answers to these questions, psychologist Stanley Milgram sought to establish the effect of authority on the level of obedience and adherence to orders (Russell, 2011; Benjamin Jr. & Simpson, 2009; Blass, 2009; Burger, 2009) . Through a classic and subsequently controversial experiment, Milgram concluded that people tend to show obedience either out of fear or when they are convinced that obedience will portray them as cooperative personalities to the authorities (Russell, 2011, Burger, 2009; Encina, 2004) . Subsequently , people are more likely to obey when under the watch of the reinforcing authority , even when the act of obedience contravenes their principle judgments and desires. Informed by this , Milgram argued that members of society are unwilling to confront subjects that boldly abuse power (Benjamin Jr. & Simpson, 2009).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The obedience experiment
During the World War II (WWII) , the Nazi fleets under Adolf Hitler killed numerous people . This was perceived as obedience to their commanders in the battlefield. T he justification given by the several high-rank ing officials implicated in the acts of genocide was that they were acting on orders from their senior s and hence had to obe y . In formed by this , Milgram set out to ascertain the validity of this defense and explore d the reason behind the obedience depicted by the Nazi fleets under Adolf Hitler. T o select participants for his experiment, Milgram drafted a newspaper advertisement that sought to recruit male applicants to take part in a research study at Yale University. A total of fort y men between the ages of 20 and 50 years from New Haven area turned up for the investigative learning session ( Blass, 2009 ).
All the participants were introduced to a confederate of the experiment, Mr. Milgram, who posed as a participant . The experiment involved two major roles, i.e., the teacher and the learner . The participants were therefore asked to draw straws so as to determine the roles they would play in the experiment. The experiment ’s supervisor, an actor, was a male figure dressed in a gray lab coat. The experiment took place in two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory. In one room, there was an electric chair meant for the learner while the second room, meant for the supervisor and the teacher, contained an electric shock generator.
One of the learners in the experiment, Mr. Wallace was tie d to the electric chair using electrodes. The teacher then introduced the learner to pairs of words and allowed him some time to learn and master the words . A few minutes later, the teacher tested the learner ’s understanding by making him recall the various pairs of words learned earlier. Every time the learner made a mistake, the teacher administered an electric shock, starting from the least severe (15 V) to the most severe (450V). From the beginning, the learner intentionally gave wrong responses to which he received an electric shock. The teacher stopped administering the shocks when he realized th at they were ineffectiveness. At this point, the supervisor gave a series of orders compelling the teacher to continue with the electric shocks. There were four orders , and the supervisor read the previous one every time the learner failed to obey. Each given order meant a subsequent increase in voltage of the electric shock to be administered. The results of the experiment indicated that two-thirds of the participants withstood the severity of the electric shocks to 450 volts. Similarly, all the participants reached the 300 volts.
Milgram concluded that ordinary people are more likely to obey orders from a figure in authority to the extent of willing to kill fellow human beings. He also argued that the tendenc y to obey authorities depends on the way in which people are brought up. Further, Milgram reckoned that ordinary citizens are more likely to follow orders from people whose authority they recognize as morally justified and legally acceptable ( Benjamin Jr, & Simpson, 2009) . In this case, the tendenc y to disobey the teacher in the experiment emanated from the fact that the participants knew that such teachers were only assuming such authority. Similarly, the teachers in the experiment were willing to increase the severity of electric shock upon the orders of the supervisor irrespective of the level of pain they were subjecting the learners. Also, t he teachers seemed to obey the orders of the supervisor due to the belief that he was acting out of a legal mandate from Yale University.
According to Russell (2011) , the ability to obey legitimate authority is gained through learning in a family setting, at school or in the workplace. Obedience is regarded as an aspect of human behavior which is learned through interaction with the most immediate environment in which an individual lives. Obedience is also developed from an early age, and hence, cannot be forced onto people in their adult age. Thus, Milgram developed two states of behavior that characterize human social interactions ( Encina, 2004) . He defined the autonomous state as a situation in which people exhibit total control over their actions and as a result, take full responsibility for the outcome of their actions. He also advanced the agentic state as a social behavior category in which people show little control over their actions. Individuals in an agentic state of social behavior tend to pass over the consequences of their actions to the person in authority who might have given the orders to execute such actions . H ence, such people act as agents of the will of the individuals in power ( Burger, 2009; Encina, 2004 ). This explains why subordinates always tend to f i nd legitimate excuses to lay the blame for their personal failures on their leaders or manager s .
The effect of Milgram’s experiment on people
Following completion of the o bedience e xperime nt , numerous scholars raised several concerns . For instance, s ome psychologist s boldly disqualif ied the realism advanced by Milgram on the basis that the setting of the experiment lack ed an allusion or a substitute situation in real life ( Herrera, 2001 ). T he argument here was that people tend to think according to real life situations whose impact cannot be compared to the effect of passing 450 volts of electricity through the human body. Hence, the results and the conclusions would have been more convincing had Milgram used factors that are practical in the day to day lives of participants . Nevertheless, despite the criticism, the experiment had various effects on people.
The effect of the o bedience ex periment on humanity is enshrined in the interpretation of the two sociological states of human behavior as advanced by Milgram. The classification of the human sociological behavior brought an understanding of the nature of responses that people exhibit in relation to orders and authority. For instance, people tend to establish the legitimacy and authenticity of the source of orders before they choose to either obey or disobey. As a result, the human mind becomes manipulated by the existing authority to the extent that it quickly follows any orders once it is established that they come from a legal, authentic and moral source. Informed by this , a big percentage of the human mind exhibits an agentic state of social behavior. T he Nazi fleets that carried out racial extermination represent the agentic state of social behavior. Conversely , there is a group of people which does not obey irrespective of the authenticity, morality or legitimacy of orders. Milgram, therefore, emphasizes that such people cannot be considered as rude to the authority . Rather , they have been brought up in an environment that seldom encourages obedience. Hence, the primary effect o f the experiment on the people is that it form ed the basis for understanding human behavior in response to authority. It also established the principles upon which the analysis of human mind can be successfully carried out.
Burger (2009 ) argues that Milgram’s findings elicit some sense of responsibility in the human fraternity particularly regarding owning up to negative consequences of personal actions. The primary intention of the experiment was to instill a sense of reflection and critical thinking when taking orders. While it might seem unethical to question orders from people in authority, it is prudent for an individual to take a moment and consider the outcomes of such orders if executed in the manner in which they are given . It is only through such reflection that people can realize the potential consequences of their actions and choose to either obey or disobey. The bottom line, in this case, is that irrespective of the decision made , the decision maker is fully aware of the outcome and hence cannot blame the source of orders for his or her actions .
Conclusion
Despite the criticism meted against the setting for the o be dience e xperiment, the fact remains that its findings can be used to gauge the probability of people to obey in certain situations. For instance, it was established that people are mo re likely to follow orders from morally legitimate authorities without considering the ir repercussions . Moreover, obedience is not static but instead can be learned from the environment and developed as one grows. In this case, it can be argued that the ability of an individual to obey is dependent on his or her upbringing. Hence, despite the moral legitimacy of orders, some people are likely to follow while others are not . Overall, the obedient experiment was instrumental in shaping people's understanding of human behavior especially in regard to respect for authority figures. Thus, despite its shortcomings, the experiment was vital in the advancement of the field of Psychology.
References
Benjamin Jr, L. T., & Simpson, J. A. (2009). The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram's obedience studies on personality and social psychology. American Psychologist , 64 (1), 12.
Blass, T. (2009). From New Haven to Santa Clara: A historical perspective on the Milgram obedience experiments. American Psychologist , 64 (1), 37.
Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist , 64 (1), 1.
Encina, G. B. (2004). Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authority. Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authority .
Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. K., Yarbrough, G. L., Russell, T. M., ... & Monte, E. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology , 6 (2), 139.
Herrera, C. D. (2001). Ethics, deception, and ‘those Milgram experiments.' Journal of applied philosophy , 18 (3), 245-256.
Russell, N. J. C. (2011). Milgram's obedience to authority experiments: Origins and early evolution. British Journal of Social Psychology , 50 (1), 140-162.
