1. Social Influence 3: Obedience to Authority 20 May 2004

2. Stanley Milgram: Obedience to Authority

3. Reasons for the Experiments

4. Milgram’s Obedience Studies: The Basics Predictions Experts thought only 1-3% would keep going Psychopaths Also thought that they themselves would never obey Results 65% obeyed to the end (450 v.) Males and females obeyed More or less the same across cultures 100% obey up to 100 v.

5. Learner’s Schedule of Protests 1 120: “ugh! Hey, this really hurts.” 150: “ugh!!! Experimenter! That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.” 195: similar to 150 210: “Ugh!! Experimenter! Get me out of here. I’ve had enough. I won’t be in the experiment any more.” 270: (agonized scream) “Let me out of here (x6)” 285: (agonized scream)

6. Learner’s Schedule of Protests 2 300: (agonized scream) “I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You can’t hold me here…” 315: (intensely agonized scream) “I told you I refuse to answer. I’m no longer part of this experiment.” 330: (intense and prolonged agonized scream) “Let me out of here (x2). My heart’s bothering me …. (hysterically) Let me out of here (x2). You have no right to hold me here. Let me out! (x6).” After 330: silence, refuses to answer word-pair questions

7. Experimenter’s Schedule of Prods Prod 1: “Please continue” or “Please go on” Prod 2: “The experiment requires that you continue” Prod 3: “It is absolutely essential that you continue” Prod 4: “You have no other choice, you must go on”

8. Why did they obey? Reasons with merit: – Slippery slope – Proximity to the victim – Proximity to the experimenter – Authority – Group Effects/Conformity Reasons without merit: – Legitimacy of the experiment – Fairness of the experiment – Aggression

9. Proximity to the Victim 1: Percent Obedience 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 No Voice Cues Voice Cues Same Room Touch

10. Proximity to the Victim 2: Mean Maximum Shock Level 0 100 200 300 400 500 No Voice Cues Voice Cues Same Room Touch

11. Why did they obey? Reasons with merit: – Slippery slope – Proximity to the victim – Proximity to the experimenter – Authority – Group Effects/Conformity Reasons without merit: – Legitimacy of the experiment – Fairness of the experiment – Aggression

12. Proximity of the Experimenter 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BLPhone Percent Obedient 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Mean Max Shock BLPhone

13. Why did they obey? Reasons with merit: – Slippery slope – Proximity to the victim – Proximity to the experimenter – Authority – Group Effects/Conformity Reasons without merit: – Legitimacy of the experiment – Fairness of the experiment – Aggression

14. Authority 1: Who Gives the Commands? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 experimenter learnerconfederate Percent Obedient 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 experimenter learnerconfederate Mean Max Shock

15. Authority 2: Undermining Authority 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 authority as victim two authorities: contradictory commands two authorities: one as victim Percent Obedient 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 authority as victim two authorities: contradictory commands two authorities: one as victim Mean Max Shock

16. Why did they obey? Reasons with merit: – Slippery slope – Proximity to the victim – Proximity to the experimenter – Authority – Group Effects/Conformity Reasons without merit: – Legitimacy of the experiment – Fairness of the experiment – Aggression

17. Group Effects 0 20 40 60 80 100 BL Two Peers Rebel Peer Gives Shock Percent Obedient 0 100 200 300 400 500 BL Two Peers Rebel Peer Gives Shock Mean Max Shock

18. Why did they obey? Reasons with merit: – Slippery slope – Proximity to the victim – Proximity to the experimenter – Authority – Group Effects/Conformity Reasons without merit: – Legitimacy of the experiment – Fairness of the experiment – Aggression

19. Legitimacy of the Experiment 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BL Bridgeport Percent Obedient 280 300 320 340 360 380 Bridgeport BL Mean Max Shock

20. Why did they obey? Reasons with merit: – Slippery slope – Proximity to the victim – Proximity to the experimenter – Authority – Group Effects/Conformity Reasons without merit: – Legitimacy of the experiment – Fairness of the experiment – Aggression

21. Fairness 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BLPrior Conditions Percent Obedient 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 BLPrior Conditions Mean Max Shock

22. Why did they obey? Reasons with merit: – Slippery slope – Proximity to the victim – Proximity to the experimenter – Authority – Group Effects/Conformity Reasons without merit: – Legitimacy of the experiment – Fairness of the experiment – Aggression

23. Aggression 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BL Ss choose shock levels Percent Obedient 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 BL Ss choose shock levels Mean Max Shock

24. Concluding Thoughts With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts. … A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority. ~Stanley Milgram, 1965

25. Concluding Thoughts Obedience, as determinant of behavior, is of particular relevance to our time. It has been reliably established that from 1933-1945 millions of innocent persons were systematically slaughtered on command. Gas chambers were built, death camps were guarded, daily quotas of corpses were produced with the same efficiency as the manufacture of appliances. These inhumane policies may have originated in the mind of a single person, but they could only be carried out on a massive scale if a very large number of persons obeyed orders. ~ Stanley Milgram, In the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.