Reconsidering the Milgram Experiments, Research Paper Example

In the middle of the 20^th Century, the Nazi Party rose to power in Germany, drawing some of the world’s most powerful nations into war. As the war came to an end, the full import of the atrocities wrought by the Nazis came to light, shocking the world. Under the aegis of Adolph Hitler, the Nazis engaged in the systematic murder of tens of millions, including some six million Jews. The sheer magnitude of the Holocaust was unfathomable to most people; the Nazis had done nothing less than bring to bear the modern technologies of industrialization to create an assembly line of murder. The questions prompted by the Holocaust were simple, yet seemingly beyond answering: how and why did the people of Germany go along with the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews, and other “undesirables”? In the aftermath of the Nuremburg trials, researcher Stanley Milgram sought to find answers to these questions by designing a series of experiments that examined the nature of obedience to authority. Milgram’s experiments were both groundbreaking and controversial, and the implications of his work resonate to this day. While there seems to be a consensus that such experiments would be untouchable in the contemporary age, the implications of his work have influenced generations of research and researchers, and are considered to be among the most significant experiments in the history of the study of psychology.

The general scope of Milgram’s experiments is well-known. Though he conducted a series of such experiments, it was his first such effort that has garnered the most attention and set the tone for how his work has been viewed through the lens of history. What made his experiment so compelling, and so controversial, was the fact that the subjects of the study did not know they were the subjects; instead, they believed they were mere participants, assisting the researchers with studying a different set of subjects. This duplicity on the part of Milgram and his assistants was fraught with ethical ramifications, and it yielded results that were both surprising and disturbing.

The basic premise of the experiment was that it was ostensibly intended to study the manner in which punishment affected the ability of test subjects to learn. The participants were assigned the roles of “teacher” and “learner,” with the real subjects of the experiment believing their assignment to the role of teacher was random. The learners were seated in one room; the teachers in another. The teachers were instructed that they were conducting a word-related learning experiment, and that each time the learner provided an incorrect response, the teacher was expected to administer an electric shock to the learner. The teachers were told that these shocks would not cause permanent damage, but that they were painful, and that each shock would become increasingly powerful. While the shocks were not real, the teachers –the actual test subjects- were led to believe that they were. The purpose of the experiment, of course, was to see to what extent these test subjects would comply with the instructions, or if they would refuse to participate in the experiment. Milgram’s description of the test subjects:

The subjects were 40 males between the ages of 20 and 50, drawn from New Haven and the surrounding communities… (they) believed they were to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University. A wide range of occupations is represented in the sample. Typical subjects were postal clerks, high school teachers, salesmen, engineers, and laborers. Subjects ranged in educational level from one who had not finished elementary school, to those who had doctorate and other professional degrees. (Milgram, 1964)

Milgram made a point of noting in his report on the initial experiments that he conducted a series of preliminary discussions and interviews with students from Yale about the experiments in an effort to gain their opinions about how fully the subjects would comply with the instructions to administer electric shocks to the “learners;” the general consensus was that few, if any, would deliver the full measure of the shocks. As it turned out, of course, a significant number of subjects did comply with their instructions; each of them exceeded the expectations of the Yale students, while 26 of the 40 went on to deliver the full range of shocks.

In discussing the results of the experiment, Milgram described several observations he found surprising (beyond the total level of compliance). Although a significant number of subjects complied with the orders to deliver electric shocks, many of these subjects displayed notable levels of stress and tension. These reactions manifested in a number of unexpected behaviors, ranging from nervous laughter to shaking to full-blown seizures. Milgram noted the seeming incongruity between the nature of these reactions and the fact that the majority of the subjects were clearly acting in ways that contrasted with their own sense of ethical behavior; as he put it, “26 subjectsabandon (their own standards) in following the instructions of an authority who has no specialpowers to enforce his commands.”

The surprising, and even disturbing, results of the Milgram experiment called for efforts to assess what motivated the subjects to respond to in such extreme ways, and to examine what conditions inherent to the experiment prompted such levels of compliance. Milgram pointed to a number of factors that may have influenced the subjects; among them were: the seeming legitimacy of the context (a study at Yale), the ostensible value of the study (to advance the causes of education and learning), the apparent voluntary participation of the learner, and the less-tangible, but perhaps most significant, nature of the relationship between perceived authority figures –the researchers- and the subordinate participants.

It is in this area of the psychological factors shaping the relationship between the researchers and participants that Milgram notes a measure of ambiguity; the participants are unsure about the perceived expectations and limitations of this relationship, and have little time to consider these expectations before the experiment begins to intensify. Once committed to the subordinate role the subjects have assumed, it seems most choose to follow through with that commitment despite having, in many cases, obvious misgivings about that decision. The results of the Milgram experiment were enormously influential, inspiring subsequent generations of researchers to further explore its ramifications regarding the nature of obedience to authority.

Researcher Thomas Blass has conducted a number of studies related to the outcome of the Milgram experiment with an eye towards understanding the nature of authority as presented in it, and towards explaining how this authority can be so easily asserted. In his report The Milgram Paradigm After 35 Years: Some Things We Now Know About Obedience to Authority,Blass examines a wealth of data taken from “35 years of accumulated research and writings on the obedience paradigm” (Blass, 2006) and presents several conclusions about what factors underpinned the reactions and behaviors seen in the Milgram experiment. It is this “nature of authority” that is of primary concern to Blass, and he makes some compelling arguments about why the researchers were able to affect the Milgram subjects as they did.

Blass notes that Milgram himself asserted that, in terms of the researchers in his experiment, “the power of an authority stems not from personal characteristics but from his perceived position in a social structure.” In this sense, the researcher who guides the subject in the Milgram experiment does not have to project any specific characteristics to exert his authority; the very fact of his presence in the context of the researcher/participant relationship is in itself an expression of “legitimate authority” (Blass, 2006). This relationship supports “the ability of a legitimate authority to define reality for the person who accepts his or her authority” (Blass, 2006).

Because of the ethical concerns about misleading test subjects, and exposing them to the risk of psychological harm, an experiment such as Milgram’s would be unlikely today. Efforts to further explore the nature of obedience and authority, then, must be conducted with the consent of participants, thereby forcing changes to the way such experiments can be set up. One such experiment was conducted that was comprised of a “virtual” recreation of the Milgram experiment; in this study, some participants interacted with a “virtual human” (Slater et al, 2006) as depicted on a video screen, while others interacted via text messages with an unseen learner. Despite being aware that the learner was a simulation and that the shocks were not real, participants still exhibited many of the same responses and behaviors that were detailed in Milgram’s original report (Slater et al, 2006). The researchers used a number of techniques, including monitoring body temperature, facial flushing, and visual notices of “shaking and trembling” (Slater et al) to measure physiological responses to the experiment. Interestingly, those who could see the virtual learner were more likely to withdraw from the experiment before completion.

Because of the ethical implications of the original Milgram experiments, there have been few subsequent experiments intended to recreate its conditions, and the bulk of research intended to further explore its ramifications and implications has taken the form of comparative analysis of other, different studies that explore the themes of obedience to authority, or that attempt to examine Milgram through the lens of the contemporary ethical standards that guide such studies. According to MacArthur (2008), the conditions of the experiment that would today be considered unethical may also have affected the outcome. Had participants been fully informed that they could withdraw without penalty, or were made aware that they might suffer psychological harm, posits MacArthur, more may have withdrawn early or refused to comply at all.

This analysis of the Milgram experiment may have some value, though there is some room for doubt; while the subjects of the study were unaware of the true nature of their participation, the matter of coercion remains open to interpretation. On one hand, participants were told beforehand that they would be paid regardless of the outcome of the experiment; on the other hand, at each stage where they were expected to deliver an electric shock, they were prompted with directives such as “the study demands that you continue” (Milgram; MacArthur). Despite such prompts, 14 of the original participants withdrew early.

It is, perhaps, these still-extant questions that have assured a place for the Milgram experiment among the list of the most significant and influential psychological studies in the history of the field. While the experiment was clearly a product of its time, the questions it raised and the implications of its results remain timeless. The likelihood that the conditions of the experiment will be replicated are slim, leaving contemporary researchers somewhat limited in terms of how they can further explore the issues it raised. As such, Milgram’s work remains one of the most important sources of information about the nature of obedience to authority, and its gray areas may actually shed light on what are some of humanity’s darkest and most dangerous impulses.

Bibliography

Blass, Thomas. The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: some things we know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 29(5). 31 July 2006. 955-978.

MacArthur, Dan. Good ethics can sometimes mean better science: research ethics and the Milgram experiments. Science and Engineering Ethics. Springer Science and Business Media. 2008.

Milgram, Stanley. Behavioral study of obedience.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67(4). 1 October 1963. 371-378.

Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C, et al. (2006) A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE 1(1): e39.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000039