The Stanley Milgram Experiment: Submission to Authority

Stanley Milgram - who is he

Stanley Milgram is a native of New York. Born in August 1933. Studied at the James Monroe School. His classmate was Philip Zimbardo, who later became a fairly successful psychologist.

For further education, Stanley chose King's College in New York. He entered the Faculty of Political Science. After a while, I realized that I did not want to develop in this area. But I finished my studies.

While in college, Milgram became interested in social psychology. The first attempt to enter Harvard for this specialty ended in failure. The guy didn't have enough knowledge. He did not despair, but directed all his strength to study. So, over the summer, Stanley took 6 courses at 3 universities. Thanks to this, in 1954 his dream came true - he was accepted into Harvard.

While still a student, Stanley Milgram met Solomon Asch, who studied conformity. Stanley was even an assistant in the research and experiments of the eminent psychologist.

After studying, he decides to return back to the USA. There he continues to work in tandem with Asch, but in Princeton. Their relationship can hardly be called friendly. Rather, it was a successful interaction between two people with the same interests and views on psychological issues. A year later, Stanley Milgram went on a “free swim.”

General information about the Milgram experiment

The purpose of Milgram's experiment was to understand why Germans were so cruel to concentration camp prisoners during World War II. After the research was carried out in America, Stanley wanted to go with them to Germany. It seemed to him that the Germans were inclined to obey the orders of people who were authoritative to them, no matter what. But the results of the experience so stunned him that he decided to stay in New Haven, Connecticut. According to Milgram himself, he discovered so much obedience and submission in his fellow citizens that traveling abroad lost all meaning.

A few years later, the experiment was carried out in other countries (Holland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria, Jordan). The results were just as stunning as in the US. You can learn more about them in Stanley Milgram’s book “Obedience to Authority.”

Other authors also spoke about the research and results. But in their judgments they made a mistake. Not only the occupiers—German citizens—participated in atrocities against innocent people. Often, documents about torture or murder were signed by their fellow citizens, fellow residents of the occupied territories. And very often the Germans had no direct connection to this.

It turns out that in any country there are people who are ready to hurt both their enemies and their compatriots. It's not that they blindly listen to orders. It’s just that in their subconscious there are no restrictions on the manifestation of pathological tendencies.

It is interesting that the topic of such absurd submission was raised even before Stanley Milgram’s experiments. Sophocles, in one of his works, asked the question about the advisability of obedience in cases when things go against conscience. Philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that it is not those who commit criminal acts that are to blame for what is happening, but those who give orders.

Interesting! “As I write these lines, very civilized people are flying over my head and trying to kill me. They have nothing against me personally, and I have nothing against them personally. As they say, they are only “doing their duty.” Without a doubt, most of them are good-hearted and law-abiding citizens who would never dream of committing murder in private. On the other hand, if one of them dropped a bomb that would tear me to pieces, his sleep would not be any worse for it.” - George Orwell.

Stanley's views and reasoning were greatly influenced by Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem. The plot centers on Adolf Eichmann, who is responsible for the murder of thousands of Jews. He justified his crimes by simply doing his job.

Prerequisites and purpose of the study

Milgram became interested in the question of how much suffering a person can inflict on innocent people on the orders of his superiors. Can a person openly resist a higher power, knowing the immorality of the order and feeling the suffering of his victims?

Milgram first became interested in this issue during World War II. It is known that ordinary German citizens in the Empire of the Third Reich got jobs in concentration camps and subjected prisoners to various abuses. Germany is a country whose inhabitants are traditionally famous for their discipline and tendency to obey. That is why the researcher intended, immediately after developing the method, to go to Germany and conduct an experiment on Germans. However, preliminary experience conducted in the USA showed that Americans also show the highest tendency to obey, so Milgram decided not to go to Germany, but to continue the experiments at home.

Subsequently, the study was repeated in Germany, as well as in Austria, Spain, Holland and other countries. And in all cases the outcome of the experiments was the same.

Description of the Milgram experiment

The study was conducted at Yale University. There were a little more than 1,000 participants. The subjects had to follow a number of instructions that contradicted their conscience. The main question of the whole experiment: how far can a person go by obeying a person who is authoritative for him?

Study participants were residents of New Haven. About 300,000 people lived in this area. Milgram's choice was not accidental. University students were not eligible for two reasons:

1. They were the same age and familiar with psychology.
2. There is a risk that young people will spill the details of the experiment to others.

To obtain the most truthful results, people of different age categories, social classes, and views were needed.

In order to interest potential test subjects, Milgram published an advertisement in the newspaper. He invited me to take part in studying the possibilities of human memory and learning. There were about 300 responses in total. 12% received a personal invitation. These people included clerks, teachers, salesmen, engineers and ordinary workers. They had different educations. Some had a scientific degree, while others never completed their studies. 20% of the participants were 20-30 years old, 40% were 30-40 years old and another 40% were 40-50 years old.

How the Milgram experiment was carried out

The study was conducted by the experimenter, a 31-year-old biology teacher. He was emotionless and stern. The role of the “student” was played by a specially trained actor, a 47-year-old accountant. It is worth noting that he was always just a “student”. The rest of the subjects did not know about this.

Participants in the experiment were told about its purpose - to prove or disprove the hypothesis that a person remembers information better when experiencing pain. The experimenter suggested dividing into two groups:

• students (figurehead);
• teachers.

If the subjects did not decide who would join which group, it was proposed to draw lots. Its results, of course, were manipulated.

So, the “teacher” and the “selected” student were asked to go into a separate room. The latter was fastened to the “electric chair” using belts. This phrase is in quotation marks for a reason. The chair worked only in words. The man did not experience any sensations at all. But the “teacher” did not know about this.

The person playing the role of the teacher was told how everything would happen. Through electrodes attached to the “student’s” hands, an electrical current will enter his body. This will happen every time he makes a mistake in completing a task. The “disciple” pretended to be frightened and began to doubt. The experimenter said that the blows would cause pain, but the tissue would not be damaged.

The next stage is instruction for the “teacher”. He needs to read two word combinations to the “student”. Then do it again. But replace the first word with 4 others. The goal of the “student” is to determine the correct pair. He answers, pressing the button.

The “teacher” is in the room nearby at this time. In front of it are 30 electric generator switches (from 15 to 450V). They are grouped according to impact strength: from weak to dangerous. After a mistake, the “teacher” shocks the “student”. With the next error, the impact force increased by 15V. The last blow is a discharge of 450V. He said that it was time to end the test.

The answers of the dummy “student” were standard. In 3 pairs of words out of 4, he always made a mistake. By the end of one worksheet, the “student” received 105B. As soon as the participant took the next sheet, the presenter suggested starting again with 15B. This is how the “teacher” got used to his role. If he doubted the actions, the experimenter persuaded him to continue. To do this, he spoke one of the following phrases:

1. Continue.
2. Research requires you to continue.
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4. You have no other choice, you must continue.

It is interesting that the presenter spoke these phrases in order. If after 4 the subject continued to doubt, the experiment was stopped.

Submission to authority in the Milgram experiment

With an impact force of 105V, the “student” asked to finish the research. As the tension increased, he portrayed more and more discomfort and pain. If the “teacher” hesitated, the experimenter calmed him down, saying that he relieved him of all responsibility. And the subject continued to work, despite the screams of the test subject.

Participatory Theory

Milgram developed two theories:

The first of these is the theory of conformity, based on the research of Solomon Asch and describing the individual and the group in which he is included. According to it, in a crisis, without experience and conditions for making decisions, the subject is inclined to submit to the will of the collective, according to the group hierarchy.

The second is agency theory, where the essence of obedience is that a person begins to consider himself an instrument for the fulfillment of the desires of another and therefore is no longer responsible for his actions. This change is critical and entails all other signs of submissive behavior.

Milgram explained the behavior of the subjects during the experiment using agency theory. He believed that the essence of submission is that the subject abdicates responsibility by obeying someone else's order.

But later this theory was criticized in the psychological community. It has been replaced by "participatory theory". This meant that people were willing to do cruel things if they thought they were serving a greater purpose and it was morally right.

In this case, it was service to science, and in the cases of fascist executioners in concentration camps, which served as a prerequisite for research, it was service to the idea of ​​reviving the spirit of Germany and the dominance of the Aryan race.

Shocking results

The results of Milgram's experiment surprised everyone who took part in it, even the experimenter himself. If we make a brief report, then in almost every second case the study was completed.

For clarity, let's take one series of experiments. Of the 40 people, 26 increased the voltage to the maximum of 450V. At the same time, they did not listen to the student’s cries and his pleas for help.

But that's not the worst thing. Not one of the 40 participants attempted to complete the experiments at the first demands of the “student” to release him. They did not stop even when he screamed in “severe pain.” Overall the results looked like this:

• no one stopped before 300V;
• 5 people did not want to continue the research after a discharge of 300V;
• 4 “teachers” stopped working after 315V;
• 2 after 330V;
• 1 after 345V;
• 1 after 360V;
• 1 after 375V;
• 26 completed the job.

Impressive, isn't it?

conclusions

As a result of experiments, Milgram came to the conclusion that “normal adults” are characterized by a willingness to do anything, following the dictates of authority. The researcher put forward two theories in this regard. The first asserts that a person obeys the rules of the environment and its hierarchy when he does not have the opportunity to make an independent decision (for example, he feels a lack of knowledge). The second theory says that a subordinate tends to view himself as an instrument for performing the actions of another person, which allows him to relieve himself of any responsibility for his own actions.

Criticism and discussion

Even before the experiment began, Stanley Milgram invited psychology students at Yale University to express their opinion on how many people would reach the end of the study. They decided that such people would be less than 2%.

39 psychiatrists were asked the same question. According to them, only 1 person out of 1000 will be able to increase the voltage to the limit. 20% of test participants will reach the 225V discharge.

Both students and psychiatrists were wrong. Nobody thought that the results would be so stunning. Trying to explain them, experts put forward a number of hypotheses about what happened:

1. The participants were influenced by being within the walls of the university.
2. The "teachers" were men who were naturally inclined to aggression.
3. Participants in Milgram's experiment were unaware of the pain they were causing their students.
4. The subjects were initially sadists.

Interestingly, not a single assumption has been confirmed. And that's why:

1. The authority of the educational institution did not influence the participants in the experiment. Milgram also used other sites for research. One of them is a rental space in Bridgeport called the Bridgeport Research Association. The change of location did not change the results. Almost half reached the end of the experiments.
2. Women were not kinder than men. Like the representatives of the stronger sex, they, without any doubt, confidently walked towards the end of the test.
3. In another experiment, a “student” was asked to inform the “teacher” in advance that he had a heart disorder. During the research, he began to scream that he was in severe pain and that his heart was bothering him. The “teachers” understood this, but continued to increase the tension, eventually bringing it to its maximum level. It turns out that the subjects were aware of the harm they could cause to a person.
4. Those participating in the experiment were not sadists. This has been proven in more recent studies. In the absence of a leader, only 20% of the “teachers” reached the end. The same thing happened when instructions were transmitted by telephone. If the subject could independently choose the discharge, 95% did not exceed 150V.

And one more important point. In some cases, the subject was left with two researchers at once. The first one said that the experiment must be stopped. The second demanded a continuation. The “teacher” stopped.

Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment

One of the greatest experiments in the history of psychological science was first described by Stanley Milgram in 1963 in the article “Obedience: A Study in Behavior.”
In general terms, it is known to many students and, as a rule, it is readily commented on by teachers of social sciences in the context of methodological problems in social research, ethical issues, or when it comes to the subjection of people to social pressure. The research was the result of Milgram's thoughts about why people are capable of acting cruelly towards others, why acts of cruelty and crimes against humanity are possible. He came to the conclusion that the ability to comply is a deeply defining tendency of human behavior, its action can negate the ability to act in accordance with moral standards and level out empathy for other people.

In his experiment, Milgram set out to find out: what measure of “obedience” is inherent in a person when she is influenced by authority figures and ordered to act contrary to her own moral principles, how much suffering some people are ready to cause to others, completely innocent, when such actions are part of their duties, and to what degree of obedience people usually bend under pressure from an authority figure.

Milgram's talent as an experimentalist was that he was able to create an appropriate scientific approach to the study of such a complex topic of social behavior. In a laboratory setting, he caused one person to harm another, but no harm was actually done.

Milgram also created a model of a laboratory situation in which the factors hypothetically believed to influence the manifestation of subordination were quite accurately involved.

The participant had to play the role of an assistant to the experimenter in the study, who gave orders that contradicted the basic moral principles of a person. The subject could follow the experimenter's order or refuse to do so.

The main theoretical position formulated by Milgram: a person has a tendency to subordinate his behavior to another person, whom he perceives as more authoritative than himself, and, moreover, according to this tendency, a person can violate moral norms. Milgram believed that the tendency to obey an authority figure causes a person to hurt another person (which she had never done before) if she receives an order from someone she considers an authority.

In the experiment, conditions were created to determine the degree of subordination of one person to another.

Milgram designed a rather terrible-looking electric current generator with thirty switch levers. Each lever was labeled (from 30 to 450 volts), and the switches were labeled: “minor electric shock,” “medium shock,” “danger: powerful shock.”

The participants in the experiment were 40 men aged from 20 to 50 years, among them 15 people (both qualified and unqualified). 16 merchants and businessmen, 9 specialists of various professions. All were invited to participate in a paid study through a newspaper advertisement or by mail (for Yale University Research on Memory and Learning). Each person was paid $4.50 for participating in the experiment. Participants were told that they would receive payment regardless of their behavior in the experiment. Actors also took part in the study. One of them played the role of the experimenter, was dressed in a gray laboratory coat and looked quite formal. Another actor played the role of the test subject; he was 47 years old. Both actors were in cahoots with the experimenter.

So, when a real participant entered the social interaction laboratory, he was told a “legend”: he was participating in a study on the effect of punishment on learning. Then he and the participant-actor were given the opportunity to draw lots to determine their role in the study (“student” or “teacher”). Of course, the real subject always became the “teacher,” and the “decoy” always became the “student.” The “student” in another room was strapped to a chair and connected to electrodes connected to a current generator in the next room. They explained that a special paste is used that conducts electric current and helps avoid burns and blisters on the skin. All actions were performed in front of the real author.

The “student’s” hands were fixed so that he could reach four buttons labeled “abed” when answering the “teacher’s” question.

The “teacher” must read out a list of words and check how the “student” remembers them. The experimenter gave the “teacher” instructions: he must punish the “student” every time he answers incorrectly, adding another level of voltage to the generator for each subsequent incorrect answer. The experiment was so reliably organized that the participants could not guess that no one was actually receiving any “punishment”.

Layout of the experiment participants. From left to right: “student”, “teacher”, experimenter

The answers of the “student” (the decoy) were planned in advance with alternation of correct and incorrect ones in the same sequence in all subjects. With the increase in incorrect answers, the tension grew, the “student” began to shout that he felt bad (the phrases were recorded on tape the day before), and complained of pain in his heart. When the voltage reached 300 volts, the “student” began kicking the wall and demanded to let him go, then fell silent and did not answer any more questions. The “teacher” explained that silence is assessed as an incorrect answer and that one must act according to the instructions. Most participants at some point asked the experimenter whether they should continue, increasing the voltage further. The researcher ordered to continue, gave a series of commands, showing increasing severity, forcing, if necessary, to act more persistently.

The degree of compliance was the level of tension at which the participant refused to continue the experiment. Since there were 30 switches on the generator, each subject could receive from 1 to 30 points. Participants who reached the highest level of tension were considered obedient. Those who refused to carry out the experimenter’s commands at lower voltage levels are “defiant”.

The subject observed the suffering of the “innocent victim” and understood the real danger to the “student’s” life, but the vast majority of the participants followed the researcher’s orders and did not dare to stop the experiment.

Photo from the experiment (1963)

Milgram invited his colleagues, as well as graduates of Yale University who specialized in psychology, to predict possible results. Their estimates ranged from 1 to 3%, with an average of 1.2%. Both beginner psychologists and experienced professionals believed that those who would deal the maximum blow could not be more than 3%.

The 39 psychiatrists consulted by Milgram gave an even less accurate prognosis. They believed that only one person in a thousand would increase the voltage to the maximum value, and to half, i.e. up to 225 volts - no more than half of the subjects. Therefore, none of the psychologists could foresee the results that were obtained. In a real experiment, most of the subjects followed the experimenter’s commands and punished the “student” even after he stopped screaming and kicking the wall.

Results of S. Milgram's experiment

Following the experimenter’s commands, all subjects increased the punishments and reached the 300 volt mark (when the “student” hit the wall, begged to be let go, and then fell silent and did not give any answer).
Of course, the most unexpected and shocking thing was that a significant number of those studied passed the entire scale to the maximum. Only 14 participants refused to follow orders. 26 subjects (65%) completed the experiment at 450 volts. They were under severe stress, worried about the person’s condition, showed hostility towards the experimenters, but still obeyed. In the last part of the experiment, when the student fell silent, the subjects were extremely excited. To relieve this state of discomfort and alleviate the condition of the study participants, after the end of the experiment they were informed about all the subtleties, the general design of the study and their role. Participants were asked about their thoughts and feelings during the experiment, and a “student” appeared and made friendly peace with each subject. The experiment showed that the subjects did not resist the “main” researcher, who was dressed in a white coat and demanded to cause suffering to another participant. Overall, the study demonstrated the behavior of subordination to authority and its deep roots in human nature. The participants followed the experimenter's orders, although they experienced discomfort and moral internal conflict.

The experiment was repeated in episode 21 by Milgram himself.

The fact that approximately two-thirds of the subjects administered electric shocks to their victims made a strong impression on everyone involved in the study. In interpreting the results, the following hypothetical interpretations were formulated.

1. The participants were influenced by the authority of Yale University.
2. They were men, and therefore showed the tendency towards aggressive actions characteristic of this sex.
3. The subjects were unaware of the harm and pain caused by electric shocks.
4. The participants were sadistic and were content to inflict suffering on others.

Milgram carefully tested these hypotheses in additional studies and found that all these explanations did not correspond to the real state of affairs.
Additional experiments.

1. Milgram conducted his research outside of Yale University, renting a very shabby apartment in Bridgeport, Connecticut, adorned with a sign that read “Bridgeport Research Association.” At the same time, the scientist did not refer to Yale University. The Bridgeport Research Association was represented as a for-profit organization. The results of the experiment conducted under such conditions were quite close to the main study: 48% of the subjects agreed to complete the entire scale of punishment.
2. In another series of studies, Milgram showed that female “teachers” behaved in the same way as the males in the first experiment. The results showed that the fairer sex was not more warm-hearted or compassionate.
3. In order to determine whether the participants were aware of the physical harm and the degree of painful shock experienced by the victim, the following detail was introduced before the start of the study: the “student” stated that he had a heart condition and would not be able to withstand the pain of electrical shocks. During the study, the “student” complained of heart pain and begged to stop the process. However, such changes did not make any significant adjustments to the results obtained: 65% of the “teachers” fulfilled their duties and brought the tension to the maximum.
4. As a result of additional research, it was proven that the hypothesis about certain mental disorders of the participants had no basis. All participants who responded to Milgram’s announcement with an invitation to take part in a study of the effect of punishment on memory, according to their data, educational level, profession, were ordinary people, their answers to questions on special tests of personality traits indicated that these were completely normal and balanced individuals. Describing his subjects, Milgram said that they were fairly ordinary people, from whom one could say that “they are you and me.”
5. In a situation where the experimenter left and left his “assistant,” only 20% of the participants agreed to continue the experiment. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the experimental opportunity to punish the “victim” brought pleasure to the subjects. When participants had the opportunity to determine the punishment themselves, 95% stayed within 150 volts.

So, we note again that all the hypotheses put forward were refuted.
The results of the study were not influenced by the authority of the university.

The gender of the person studied did not affect the results obtained.

The subjects were well aware of the danger of electric shocks for the participants in the experiment.

The subjects were normal, ordinary people and had no pathological tendencies, at least they were definitely not sadists.

When instructions during the experiment were provided by telephone, “obedience” became less (it was characteristic of only 20% of participants). In such a situation, the subjects only pretended to continue the experiment.

If a participant found himself in a situation with two researchers, one of whom ordered him to stop, and the other insisted on continuing, then he refused to continue participating in the experiment.

Milgram also explored the role of other factors that could increase or decrease the tendency to comply. It was found that the emotional distance between the “teacher” and the “student” changes the level of obedience. The highest level of submission was achieved when the “student” was in another room and could neither be seen nor heard. The compliance rate in this situation was 93%, the same percentage of those studied who reached the maximum level of punishment. If both participants were in the same room and the subject himself had to press the “student’s” hands to the electrodes, the level of submission dropped to 30%.

The scientist also studied how the distance between the authority figure and the subject influences the level of subordination. When the experimenter was outside the room and gave commands to the subject over the phone, the level of compliance dropped to 21%.

A special variation was that the subjects were allowed to choose the appropriate level of punishment at their own discretion - none of the participants set the switch higher than 45 volts.

When Milgram began his research, he wanted to find out why German citizens participated in the extermination of millions of innocent people in concentration camps. He wanted to conduct an experiment in Germany when he decided on the research methodology. He believed that the inhabitants of this country are more inclined to obedience (subordination). However, after conducting the first experiment, he declared: “I have found so much obedience here that I see no need to carry out this experiment in Germany.”

Thomas Blass, a researcher at the University of Maryland, writing in Psychology Today in 2002, “reviewed the results of all the replications of Milgram's experiment that have been conducted in the United States and other countries. It was found that from 60 to 66% of the individuals studied reach the end of the scale, and the data do not depend on the time and place of the study.

What makes ordinary people behave this way?

Milgram explained the results of his research this way: the need to obey authority is deeply ingrained in the human mind. The determining role was played by the inability of the subjects to openly resist the “boss” (researcher), who ordered tasks to be completed, despite the severe pain inflicted on the “student”. Milgram said that it is obvious that if the researcher allowed the experiment to be stopped, the participants would immediately do so. They were not eager to complete the tasks, saw the victim's suffering and were discouraged. They asked the experimenter to stop the study, but when they did not receive permission, they continued to press the button. The subjects protested, sweated, asked to free the victim, grabbed their heads, clenched their fists so that their nails reflected on their palms, bit their lips, and some laughed nervously.

Behind the transparent glass with a mirror effect were psychologists, Milgram's colleagues, who observed the progress of the experiment. Milgram cites the testimony of one of the eyewitnesses: “At the beginning, I saw a respectable businessman enter the laboratory, smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes of working with the voltage switches, he already looked completely different, a loser, grumbling, on the verge of a nervous breakdown... He was trembling, stuttering, constantly pulling his earlobe and wringing his hands. At some point, he grabbed his head and quietly whispered: “Oh God! Stop this!". And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter and unfailingly listened to him (obeyed him) towards the end of the experiment.”

In 1965, S. Milgram's research was awarded the annual sociopsychological prize of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Many explanations were given for the data obtained:

1. The behavior is driven by significant normative pressure. The experimenter exerts quite significant pressure, forcing the subject to carry out his orders.
2. Tendency to share responsibility: participants tend to consider others responsible for behavior in crisis or ambiguous situations.
3. Conflict of social norms. When the subject beats the victim for the first time, he forces himself to carry out the order, puts pressure on himself.

Milgram noted such significant points in his experiment.
First of all, an extremely strong tendency towards submission. The study involved ordinary people who were not prone to cruelty. Milgram pointed out that people behaved so submissively, violating the norms learned from childhood that it was impossible to hurt another person, because they were under the influence of the authority of the experimenter. However, it is necessary to determine what this authority was, because the experimenter himself did not put particularly serious pressure on the subjects, did not use any special actions to force the participants to obey. They were completely free to ignore all requests and orders; no one forbade them to act at their own discretion. The main force of coercion was the situation itself, which triggered habitual behavior.

Study participants, following the experimenter's commands, experienced great excitement and tension. Since the discomfort and excitement were quite strong and noticeable during observation, there were expectations that in the end the subjects would refuse to carry out the commands.

Milgram himself identified the following reasons for obedience:

- from the point of view of the subjects:

1. The experiment is being conducted at Yale University, professionals are working, and I have no right to doubt such a serious institution.
2. The experiment is aimed at achieving important goals, and when I have already agreed to participate in it, I must complete my task.
3. I have made commitments to participate in the study, so I must fulfill them.
4. Circumstances have developed in such a way that I am the “teacher” and he is the “student”. It happened so, it was an accident. Next time maybe it will be different.
5. I get paid to do a job, so I need to do it properly.
6. I don’t know all the rules in the behavior of psychologists and subjects, so I have to agree with their point of view.
7. The researchers told us both that the electric shock was not painful and was safe.

The Milgram experiment is perhaps the last psychological experiment to have such a significant impact on psychology and public opinion.
More than 30 years have passed, but it is still of interest and makes a great impression on those who meet it for the first time. Criticism of the experiment. Milgram quite acutely raised the problem of ethical standards when conducting research with people. Critics of this experiment expressed their position in a rather harsh manner, noting that such studies are unacceptable because they created an unacceptable level of stress for the participants (D. Baumrind, 1964, A. Miller, 1986). It was also said that the study could have long-term consequences for its participants, because, having learned about the true purpose and consequences of the experiment, they could be filled with mistrust of psychologists or other persons in authority.

Psychologists also expressed doubts about the validity of Milgram's conclusions. The subjects came to the laboratory, they assumed obligations and felt dependent on the experimenter. In addition, the laboratory is an unusual environment for them, so their subordination and obedience in this situation will not be the same as in real life.

Therefore, the results of the study were assessed as unfounded, absolutely not comparable with the real behavior of people, and the measure of dangerous stress for the subjects was assessed as excessive and unjustified.

While defending his work, Milgram conducted additional research to examine participants' reactions. 85% were satisfied that they worked with a psychologist, and only 1% of those who took part in the experiment regretted it. All 40 participants were also examined by a psychiatrist, who concluded that no one was harmed and had no reason to expect any negative long-term consequences in the future.

Milgram responded to his critics: “The people who came to the laboratory to participate in the experiment were only adults, active, capable of accepting or rejecting the actions recommended to them.”

Milgram's experiment was actively discussed and evaluated by psychologists. The controversy revolved around two problems: how consistent are the research findings with actual human behavior and what principles are important to take into account in psychological research in general. American psychologist Blas, a young colleague of Milgram's, conducted a thorough review of all the studies that examined obedience problems associated with Milgram's early experiments. Blas says Milgram's findings are valid and universal, and similar experiments conducted by other researchers over 40 years show that the level of obedience has not changed since then. This conclusion does not confirm the hope of psychologists and democratic public institutions that modern people are no longer so subject to authority and can act autonomously and protest, not agreeing to follow the orders of the authorities. In particular, in his review, Blas also found out from research that there is no difference between the submission of men and women.

An important issue in the debate surrounding the Milgram study, which has again and again attracted the attention of researchers, is whether the deception that researchers so often and willingly practice can be avoided. Why do psychologists so easily choose to deceive, how truthful are they when they claim that they are doing it for the sake of science, why don’t they choose a truly more ethical strategy of behavior for themselves? How to protect people from the practice of irresponsible deception of the researcher, because the openness of the research, as a rule, leads to the impossibility of obtaining truly important data.

Some psychologists believe that at the very least, participants should be informed that they will not know the whole truth about the study, and then allowed to decide for themselves whether they agree to participate under such conditions (“knowledgeable consent”) (D. Wendler , 1996). Of course, psychologists should be more thoughtful about the fact that deception is practiced unnecessarily in research, since there is no justification for disrespecting participants. Psychologists should seek experimental strategies that ensure respect for research participants and a quality scientific outcome.

In conclusion, we believe that Milgram's research is not universal, as Blas claims. It has not been conclusively proven that the pressure of the situation forces one to obey, and personal factors do not act in this case. In Milgram's experiment, 14 subjects did not obey the experimenter. Blas himself pointed out that personal factors (traits, beliefs) are more decisive than the tendency to obey authority.

Source: Kopets L.V. Classic experiments in psychology - K., 2010

Interesting Facts

In 2002, the general results of all Milgram's experiments were published. It turned out that 61-66% of subjects reached the highest voltage levels. In this case, place and time did not play a role.

In connection with these data, the question arises: what makes a person behave this way? Why are people so cruel? According to Milgram, the culprit is a deeply rooted desire in the subconscious to be subordinate to an authority figure. The subjects did not find the strength to contradict the experimenter, who gave cruel instructions.

If the presenter had not demanded that the “game” be continued, the “teacher” would have immediately left it. Many participants, seeing the suffering of the “student,” became nervous, covered in perspiration, bit their lips until they bled, and begged to free the victim. The observer spoke about one of the subjects. He was a cheerful, confident person. In just a third of an hour he was driven to a nervous breakdown. He was very worried, beat himself, wrung his hands, but continued to follow all the experimenter’s instructions.

What conclusion did Milgram himself make after the experiment? Conscientious adults have a pronounced willingness to blindly follow authority. And it is unknown how far they can go.

Yale University Archival Research and Refutation

Published archival materials from Yale University on the Milgram experiment were analyzed jointly by American and German social scientists: Matthew Hollander from the University of Wisconsin and Jason Turowetz from the University of Siegen.

They discovered interesting facts. It turns out that not all participants were sure that they were causing harm to the subjects; some of them assumed that it was just a game, a performance. This meant that their behavior could not be explained using participatory theory.

The recordings made it possible to find out the distribution of motives of conformist subjects (46 out of 91 people). 60% of them mentioned at least once that they followed the instructions. This fact supports the hypothesis put forward by Milgram. 10% mentioned that they fulfill contractual obligations because they were paid for it.

According to scientists, if the theory of engaged attention were valid, then most subjects would mention science as a valuable idea that they were willing to serve. But such mentions were no more than 25% (only 6 out of 91).

At the same time, 72% of the consenting subjects (33 out of 46) admitted that they did not believe in the seriousness of the impact, and if it were dangerous, they would probably be stopped. In addition, the experimenters themselves reported before the start of the experiment that electric shocks would not cause harm to the “students.”

Thus, the scientists came to the conclusion that the behavior of the subjects cannot be explained using the theory of involved participation. In contrast, data from interviews, a long-established research method in psychology, show that participants' motivations are much more complex than originally thought.

In September 2013, the book “Behind the Shock Machine” was published by Australian psychologist Gina Perry, who examined audio recordings from the archives of Yale University and came to the same conclusion as independent researchers before.

In total, more than 1000 people went through the experiment in 1961-1962. Some of them were shocked to discover an unknown “dark side” in themselves, but many calmly returned to normal life. Most of the participants understood perfectly well that the experiment was a sham and no harm was caused to the “students.” There was evidence of this in the archives, for example, letters from participants to Milgram some time after the experiment.

One of the participants reported that he guessed the deception, citing the well-known fact that punishment does not promote learning, and the fact that he saw the victim of supposedly terrible electric shocks leaving the testing room with a smile on his face. He also noted some other oddities in the behavior of other participants and asked Milgram to tell him about the true purpose of the experiment. He replied that this is secret information, but he is ready to share it in a private conversation, provided that the interlocutor does not tell anyone. And six months later, another participant wrote to Milgram to reveal his deception.

Other subjects were also skeptical, as reflected in the questionnaires they filled out. For example, one participant expressed doubt that Yale University would conduct such inhumane experiments. Also suspicious was the fact that the “student” initially complained of pain in the heart, and the subjects were informed that this was a random person “from the street.” It is doubtful that scientists would make such a mistake, putting the life of a volunteer at risk.

Gina also discovered another significant ethical violation. Participants were supposed to be told the truth after the experiment to calm them down, but in most cases this never happened. Many experienced severe mental suffering for this reason.

In addition, it turned out that Milgram distorted the results of the experiment to make it look more scientific. He argued that all experiments followed the same scenario, the subjects were told the same phrase. But the recordings showed that this was not the case: the experimenter persuaded the subjects to continue the experiment or even forced them to do so, so that the line between subordinate and independent behavior became increasingly blurred.