 |
| The Book of Milgram Experiment ——'Obedience to Authority', Stanley Milgram |
Hey!
This is Dr. Behaviorson. Remember last time when we talked about Stanford
Prison Experiment. The investigation was applied extremely because people were
arrested for unknown reasons and they were blindly imprisoned to a secret
prison. In fact, throughout the whole experiment, many “prisoners” chose to
obey the rules given by experiment conductors despite many times of violent
struggles and forceful complaints. But why is that? Why do people have to obey
the rules suddenly made for them and become so subordinate beyond expectation?
So this time we are going to talk about why people would be obedient to certain
rules. In 1963, Yale psychology professor Stanley Milgram decided to devise an
experiment to test people’s willingness of subordination under certain
pressure. Especially, Stanley Milgram chose some Yale college students as the
subjects of the experiment. you may ask why he chose Yale college students to
be the subjects. My personal conjecture is that college students are easy to
form a disobedient and even rebellious mindset under the circumstances embraced
by broader scope of social communication and various choices and opportunities
provided by society. Therefore, under such influence, college students would be
likely to defy the settled facts. On the other side, Stanley Milgram also chose
a wide variety of people of different ages to achieve the universality of the
experiment.
In the
experiment, there are 3 types of individuals involved: experiment conductors,
subjects and confederates. Wait! Why is the position of confederate set? The
confederate is like an associative actor of the experiment conductor. In other
words, experiment conductor is the protagonist on the stage to perform and
confederate is like a perfect foil to increase the dramatic intensity. Of
course, the subject is the blind man on the stage to sense this dramatic
intensity and decide whether to believe. Therefore, instead of being an
elaborate experiment, this investigation is rather a planned show with histrionic
effects. Back to the experiment, the experiment conductor and the subject were
placed in one room and the confederate was place in the other. When the subject
was invited to join in the experiment, they were told with misleading details
of the experiment. Actually, the experiment conductors and subjects interacted
in a way of QAQ. With every correct one, the subject can continue the next
question posed by the conductor. With every wrong one, the experiment conductor
had to increase the 15-voltge on the meter to “electrify” the confederate. The
punishment was so absurd that many people began to question the motives of the
questioner and his rules. But after a succession of questions, they are
reluctant to go on. And with every time pressing with minor conviction and
major doubt, the subjects would hear a frightening, though feigned, shout from
the confederate, who was painfully bounded by the electrodes and trapped in the
dimmed closet. Maybe the imagination of the subject would not go so far because
the terror associated with the shout, like a warning bell, petrified the
subject each and every time they pressed the button. In other words, their
anxiety escalated over and over and affected negatively on the correctness of
their answers. Therefore, as the experiment proceeded by the time, the subjects
gradually lost their rational thinking for the frequent shout and approached
the blink of the collapse. Needless to say, after certain degree of electrical
shock, the subjects could not accept the punishment to the confederate instead
of themselves. But they did not know that the pain from the punishment in the
confederate was empathized to themselves. Of course, people exhibited various
reactions of disparate emotions. Some showed extreme anger onto the absurdity
and meaninglessness of the instructions given by the conductor. They also
repeated times after times that they would not continue under any condition.
Some showed the sense of despair and even begged to quit the experiment. Thus,
the similarity shared by the majority of experimenters was the unwillingness to
proceed. They, of course, indicated their personal wills to reject and defy.
 |
| Depression in choosing whether to obey |
But
here is a noticeable point in the experiment: the instructions given by the
experimenter. What is the magic lurked in the words of the experimenter to maintain
the subjects’ willingness at the beginning but to make them refuse in the end?
What kind of communicative hint should be given to show the subjects’
willingness of obedience? Actually, instructions given by the experimenter were
brief and clear and there are only four types of instructions given: “Please continue”, “The experiment requires that
you continue”, “It is absolutely
essential that you continue” and “You
have no other choices, you must go
on.” Under a close examination, the words are found forceful and especially
determined. From the other aspect, the instructions implied that the subjects’
actions would not responsible for the injuries suffered by the confederate.
This implication offered an excuse for the subject to press the button. Yes, the human stain. The obedience came from
free of duty and the invisible power embraced in the words. Basically, the
subjects reacted to the instructions subconsciously, using the crucial factors
in the surroundings instead of the rational thinking to make the choice.
Therefore, their unwillingness was successively performed and the experiment
was halted times after times, forming an increasing pressure for the subjects
either to answer or to press the button for the wrong answer. When their
fingertips approached the maximum indicators on the meter, most people felt
half-relieved, for there is no more painfully-struck screaming from the next room, and half-horrified, for possible accusation
of murder of electrification. In reality, about 65% of subjects pressed the
450-voltage, which is the highest indicator on the meter. But when they finally
saw the confederate walking out of the room unharmed, extreme negativity shown
in their emotions soon vanished.
After
the experiment, people’s reaction achieved the polarization again, but mostly
about criticisms. Certainly, one perspective from the experiment was that what
the subjects were assured was not validated. For example, they were unaware of
the fact that they would exert execution on the victims. Therefore, the breach
of the promises also gave an opportunity for critics. The other perspective
from the criticism was the exploration of the hidden aspects of the human
nature——obedience.
It forced us keep in touch with certain facts, suppressing to a superior power.
But here is the question. To what extent was obedience applied to measure the
human nature? Did it mean that obedience to the superior power equals to the
stain in the human nature? Maybe the inappropriateness in the experiment
revealed us from the measure of the extremes of obedience. And the way to
measure them was so ruthless and unconventional. It can be imagined that when
the person was forced to press the 450-voltage button, enormous pressure forced
him to follow the obedience but there should be an inner voice deep down in the
subject’s heart, associated with the principles of social ethics, calling out
to forbid. In fact, it is person’ competition of his inside with his outside.
And the purpose of the investigation is to see which side wins.
 |
| Indications on the Meter |
Overall,
the obedience in the modern society has always been an unsettled subject. Maybe
when we face certain pressure from the unchallengeable authority, we would
mostly obey to it. But when certain rule is flexible enough or much freedom is
given, we would have a different choice. And that’s rational thinking. But
under the controlled experimental conditions, rationality did not apply and
only sub-consciousness worked, which functioned as a critical factor that
influences the subjects in every pressured pressing.
References:
