We Will Pay You $4.00 For One Hour of Your Time Public Announcement We Will Pay You $4.00 For One Hour of Your Time Persons Needed for a Study of Memory We will pay five hundred New Haven men to help us complete a scientific study of memory and learning. The study is being at Yale University. Each person who participates will be paid $4.00 (plus 50 cents carfare) for approximately one hour’s time. We need you for only one hour there are no further obligations. You may choose the time you would like to come (evenings, weekends, or weekdays). No special training, education, or experience is needed. We want: Factory workers Businessmen Construction workers City employees Clerks Salespeople Laborers Professionals White-collar workers Barbers Telephone worker Others All persons must be between the ages of 20 & 50. High school and college students cannot be used. Source: Adapted From Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, 1974, by Stanley Milgram.

--- Background --- Milgram was Asch's teaching assistant at Harvard in 1958 He worked for Asch at the Institute for Advanced Study in 1959 & 1960 Milgram's style of data presentation and results (percentages) similar to Asch's original monograph on conformity Milgram's dissertation was a cross-cultural study of conformity Milgram's initially wanted to replicate Asch's conformity studies using shocks

* Basic Procedure Supposed random assignment to be either the "learner" or the "administrator" (shocker) Paired associate learning task: Blue box Nice day Wild duck Testing: Blue: sky ink box lamp Answer: 1 2 3 4 (switches) If answer is incorrect, the administrator has to shock the learner starting at 15 volts and going up at 15 volt increments (i.e., 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90 …..)

Basic Arrangement of Milgram's Studies Shock Generator The "Learner”/Victim Generator volts ranged form 15 to 450 (XXX Danger) Participants given a sample shock of 45 volts Victim’s Verbal Responses: At 75 volts, he grunts At 120 volts, he complains loudly 135 volts – painful groans At 150, he demands to be released from the experiment At 180 volts, “I can’t stand the pain” 270 volts – an agonized scream At 300 volts, states that he will no longer provide answers Control Panel Diagram

* Predictions: "Before the experiments, I sought predictions about the outcome from various kinds of people -- psychiatrists, college sophomores, middle-class adults, graduate students and faculty in the behavioral sciences. With remarkable similarity, they predicted that virtually all the subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrist, specifically, predicted that most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts, when the victim makes his first explicit demand to be freed. They expected that only 4 percent would reach 300 volts, and that only a pathological fringe of about one in a thousand would administer the highest shock on the board". (Milgram, 1974)

* EXPERIMENT # VARIATION RESULTS 1 thru 4 Proximity #1 Study (Remote) = 65% #2: Voice Feedback = 62.5 #3: Proximity(same room) = 40% #4: Touch Proximity = 30% 5 Heart Problem 65% Obedience 7 Closeness of authority (orders given over the phone) 22% Obedience* 8 Females as subjects 65% Obedience (less predicted) 10 Downtown site ("Research Associates of Bridgeport”) 48% Obedience* 13 Ordinary person issues commands (experimenter had to leave) 20% Obedience (4/20 ) 13a Accomplice assumes role of shocker; subject as "bystander" 69% allowed obedience 17 2 peers (one administrator, one recordkeeper); Subject as shocker One peer rebels (at 150 level) 10% Obedience “When an individual wishes to stand in opposition to authority, he does best to find support for his position from others in his group. The mutual support provided by men for each other is the strongest bulwark we have against the excesses of authority.” --- (Milgram, 1974) 18 2 peers - both peers keep obeying 93% Obedience

Milgram Experiment (setup for Learner Experimenter Peer Subject Peer

Excerpt from Milgram Experiment Learner (who, from the teacher’s point of view is heard but not seen, an offstage voice): Ow, I can’t stand the pain. Don’t do that … Teacher (pivoting around in his chair and shaking his head): I can’t stand it. I’m not going to kill that man in there. You hear him hollering? Experimenter: As I told you before, the shocks may be painful, but- Teacher: But he’s hollering. He can’t stand it. What’s going to happen to him? Experimenter (his voice patient, matter-of-fact): The experiment requires that you continue, Teacher. Teacher: Aaah, but, unh, I’m not going to get that man sick in there … know what I mean? Experimenter: Whether the learner likes it or not, we must go on, through all the word pairs. Teacher: I refuse to take responsibility. He’s in there hollering! Experimenter: It’s absolutely essential that you continue, Teacher. Teacher (indicating the unused questions): There’s too many left here, I mean, geez, if he gets them wrong, there’s too many of them left. I mean who’s going to take the responsibility if anything happens to that gentleman? Experimenter: I’m responsible for anything that happens to him. Continue please.

Obedience Quotes 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 (Milgram, 1965). “It is surprising how difficult it is for people to keep situational forces in mind, as they seek a totally personalistic interpretation of obedience, divorced from the specific situational pressures acting on the individual” (Milgram, 1974). …The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act (Milgram, 1974). “Any interpretation involving the attacker’s strong sadistic impulses is inadequate. There is no evidence that the majority of those who participated in such killings is sadistically inclined” (Kelman, & Hamilton, 1989, p.13, regarding the My Lai massacre)

Influence of Studies Methodology (initial study) --- # of reprints in anthologies (e.g., Aronson) TV drama (10th level) 60 minutes Magazine interviews (e.g., Esquire, Harpers) Book “Obedience to Authority” (1974) Methodology (initial study) --- No manipulated variables No control condition No theoretically derived hypotheses No specific predictions [Paper rejected twice; JPSP and Journal of Personality] Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378. Movie trailer click here

* ~ Additional Factors Affecting Obedience Rates ~ • Sense of urgency (time pressure) • No communication • Step by step increases in shock levels • State of “agency” (others are responsible)

* Destructive Obedience? Did Milgram find evidence for “destructive” obedience? Did participants knowingly and voluntarily harm the learner ? What was the mindset of the participants? How did they interpret the situation? Many cues (what subjects were told, background information) that the learner was not going to be significantly (permanently) harmed Administration of pain was believed as important in this context Role of conflicting cues (danger label on the shock generator, behavior of the learner versus reactions of the experimenter) Continued presence of the experimenter

Taxonomy of Principle-Agent Relationships Surveillance Means-Ends High Low Goals Specified Independent contractor with possibility of consultation Independent contractor determines own actions Actions specified “Master-servant” relationship; “Master” determines actions “Master-servant” relationship; “Servant” has action discretion Milgram condition

* Obedience As A Developmental/Learning Process in the Real World? If sanctioned by outside (organizational) forces, people may independently, calmly, and willing do what they were initially reluctant to do (Darley, 1995) The conversion process: “Over time, and in conditions conductive to such transformations, good people can become truly evil ---- dispositionally and morally evil” (Darley 1992) An example: Individual does not obey or alters a procedure to be less “effective” Authority figure rejects the actions of the agent Crisis point (exit or remain in the system) If one stays, more likely to obey in the future (evil-doing can be learned) Arendt (1963): “Great evil rises out of ordinary psychological processes that evolve, usually with a progression along the continuum of destruction”

* Generalization Issue "Hospital" Study --- Physician ordered a medicine to be administered to a patient in a ward Specific conditions: Done over the phone (against hospital policy) and by an unfamiliar voice b) Medication not on ward stock list and not cleared for use c) Dosage was an obviously excessive one 21/22 Nurses agreed to administer the drug >>> Written description given to 12 nurses (control condition). They were asked how they would act 10/12 nurses said they would not administer the drug Source: Hofling, Brotzman, Da;rymple, Graves, & Pierce (1966). Experimental study in nurse-physician relationships. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143(2), 171-180.

* ~ Ethical Issues ~ Harmful long-term effects to participants Use of deception (lack of informed consent) Harmful long-term effects to participants Adequacy of debriefing The right to withdraw (use of 4th prod)

* ~ The 4 Prods ~ 2) The experiment requires that you continue 1) Please continue, or, Please go on 2) The experiment requires that you continue 3) It is absolutely essential that you continue 4) You have no other choice, you must go on.

Milgram’s Position • Understanding of critical phenomenon • Insight of participants • Criticism due to nature of findings • Every effort to debrief (purpose of study, follow-up report & questionnaire, psychiatric interview 1 year later) • Results were unexpected • No harm to participants (especially long-term; many would do it again)

Studies of destructive obedience to authority Study Milgram (1963) USA Male general population 65 Female general population 65 Rosenhan (in Milgram, 1974) USA Students 85 Ancona and Pareyson (1968) Italy Students 85 Mantell (1971) Germany Male general population 85 Kilham and Mann (1974) Australia Male students 40 Female students 16 Burley and McGuiness (1977) UK Male students 50 Shanab and Yahya (1978) Jordan Students 62 Miranda et al. (1981) Spain Students > 90 Schurz (1985) Austria General population 80 Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) Holland General population 92

* Fairly Recent Obedience Study (Burger 2009) Replicated Milgram's shock study Stopped at the 150 volt level (key level in Milgram's research) Adult sample (greater age range and education level) Psychologist prescreened those who were likely to have poor reactions to the study (38% eliminated) Participants told many times they could leave and debriefing was done immediately following the study Findings: 70% obedience at the 150 level vs. 82.5% found by Milgram (no significant difference)