 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
Why obey?
In later studies using variations of this procedure, researchers continued to find considerable levels of destructive obedience among both men and women, among both children and adults, and among the residents of many different countries. One of the important things to note about the participants in these studies is that they were not psychopathic or sadistic monsters. They often showed evidence of great personal stress and anxiety, even as they continued to administer the shocks. Why did these individuals feel compelled to obey the experimenter's instructions and commit acts that appeared to result in great suffering for another human being? Milgram's own program of research, as well as that of other social scientists, suggests that personal responsibility, power, and situational entrapment all played critical roles.  Reactions to the obedience studies
Milgram's studies on obedience generated enormous interest among psychologists and the general public. (William Shatner, of Star Trek™ and Priceline.com™ fame, even starred in a television dramatization of the Milgram studies.) The initial reactions to his studies were twofold. First, a number of people were skeptical about his findings. They argued that his results were due to the artificiality of his task and the safety that the laboratory afforded. They argued that the forces that shaped behavior in his experiment would not shape behavior in the "real world" <REF>(Baumrind, 1964). Second, Milgram's study raised enormous ethical concerns. After all, although the people who participated in his studies never actually delivered any shocks to anyone, they left the experiment with the knowledge that they would have probably killed someone if the shocks had been real. During the experiment, participants frequently fidgeted, expressed concern, laughed nervously, and even cried as they continued to shock the learner.
With regard to ethics, however, things are more complicated. On the one hand, Milgram's studies clearly raise questions about the use of deception, the nature of informed consent, the levels of discomfort that are acceptable, and the role that experimenters should play in uncovering behaviors that the participants in research may find objectionable <REF>(Baumrind, 1964; Schlenker & Forsyth, 1977). These concerns were so serious that Milgram's application for membership into the American Psychological Association was delayed for a full year while an investigation took place. On the other hand, Milgram took great care to minimize any risks to his participants. At the end of each session, he introduced the participants to the unharmed confederate and carefully answered any questions they might have. Months after the study, he conducted a follow-up study with the participants and found that they described the study in positive terms. He even asked a clinician to assess forty of the participants to determine whether any lasting harm had been done. The clinician concluded that the study had not caused lasting harm. Finally, Milgram reminded his critics that, from the beginning, his goal was to understand some of the processes that led to the Holocaust. He argued that any experiment that would provide valid insight into such a topic would necessarily raise ethical concerns.
|
||||||||||||
|
Despite initial skepticism, numerous subsequent studies have
replicated Milgram's basic findings <REF>(see Blass, 1991).
Create the right mix of responsibility, power, and entrapment,
and you can create a situation in which people will obey with
terrible consequences. In a compelling demonstration of this point,
researchers who pretended to be physicians telephoned nurses at
twenty-two different hospitals. The "doctor" ordered
the nurse to administer 20 milligrams of a new drug, Astrogen,
to a patient on that floor of the hospital. Despite the fact that
both the physician and the medication were unfamiliar, and despite
the fact that the dosage requested by the "doctors"
was two times the maximum safe dosage listed on the drug container,
twenty-one of the twenty-two nurses attempted to give the medication
to the patient <REF>(Hofling and others, 1966).
