Milgram’s infamous shock study still holds lessons for confronting authoritarianism

Milgram’s infamous shock study still holds lessons for confronting authoritarianism

Written by Laura Niemi and Edouard Masheri & John M. Doris

Fifty years ago, Stanley Milgram published his book obedience to authority, This describes what has become perhaps the most famous experiment in psychology. As detailed in the book, an experimenter told participants, referred to in the study as “teachers,” that he would deliver progressively stronger shocks to those referred to as “learners.” The shock wasn’t real, but the participants thought it was.

The majority of participants continued to shock the learner despite hearing obvious cries of pain. Under the experimenter’s direction, two-thirds of the participants in the standard version of the study continued with the experiment. highest voltage levelEven when the learner complained of heart problems and then probably lost consciousness and stopped screaming.

Milgram’s “shock experiment” enters psychology today textbook, movieTV shows, blog posts, and podcasts. Milgram’s findings are there when we need to point out human vulnerability to harmful authority figures. However, this research never satisfied scientific or public interest. Learning that the participants did what they did was as upsetting then as it is now. People will think, “Surely I wouldn’t do that.” Philosophers and scientists alike have been amazed at how many alleged teachers “followed orders” all the way to the maximum shock voltage.

About supporting science journalism

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism. Currently subscribing. By subscribing, you help ensure future generations of influential stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape the world today.

Researchers have turned critical lenses on Milgram’s work many times. well-founded concerns Discussions about the ethics of placing participants in such dire conditions have led to even stricter research standards. Even further away, important reform movement In psychology, many classic experiments are being reconsidered. One critic suggests that perhaps Milgram misunderstood his findings. don’t actually believe The “students” were shocked.

By revisiting the data from Milgram’s experiment and considering the results of several conceptual replications (recent studies that used different approaches to investigate people’s sensitivity to authority figures), we found that, in fact, Milgram’s We determined that the study and conclusions remain valid. This finding has several important implications, especially when faced with the thorny question of how people overcome their tendency to submit to malicious authority.

First, it should be noted that Milgram’s experimental paradigm is reliably reproducible. Milgram himself closely reproduced the results of the standard version of his experiment at least three times. In addition, 20 duplicates found They were drawn from all over the world, with varying degrees of fidelity to the original research. One variation is for participants to execute orders. Making job seekers suffer By making negative comments until the applicant fails the qualifying exam and loses his or her chances of getting the job. The other person is game show A scenario in which contestants ask questions and shock other contestants in front of a studio audience. These efforts show that many people are following the instructions of various authority figures, sometimes at the expense of extreme suffering to others.

But do participants believe these settings are real? A reanalysis of the data from Milgram’s original experiment strongly supports the idea that people followed orders because they did not believe in the experimental scenario. I found evidence to the contrary. At the end of the experiment, Milgram informed the participants that they had not actually received a shock and asked them whether they believed the shock was real. According to Milgram’s data, participants overwhelmingly affirmed their belief in the experimental protocol. In fact, videos of these experiments (Milgram’s own and someone else’s) Some of the reasons for this anxiety are Participants’ Acute discomfort, anxiety, stress. Why would they be upset if they learned the shock was fake? Furthermore, looking at Milgram’s data, compliant and noncompliant participants reported very similar levels of belief in the experiment. You can see that it is.

These studies reveal that we are motivated to carry out the demands of authority figures. The question is whether we can prevent that trend. In his theory, moral detachmentthe late social psychologist Albert Bandura explains that blame-shifting is one of the powerful mechanisms that allows people who carry out immoral orders to “move away” from their moral compass. For example, by claiming, “I was just following an order,” a person shifts responsibility to the person who gave the order and avoids self-blame. Milgram’s experiment provides dramatic evidence of a type of blame shifting called victim blaming. one of his themes reported If the learner doesn’t cooperate, he gets “fed up” and says, “I’d better answer and get it over with. I can’t stay here all night.”

One of us (Niemi) studied When and why do people blame the victim? The researchers found that the more people expressed strong support for moral values ​​centered around authority and traditional hierarchies, the more likely they were to agree that victims deserve to be unhappy. I found it to be expensive. Fortunately, this finding also suggests that the more people express support for moral values ​​centered on care and fairness, the more sensitive they will be to the suffering of victims. There is. such values can be cultivated consciously And it is highly appreciated by various communities. These findings apply across different political groups, genders, and religious beliefs.

There is also a glimmer of hope in Milgram’s original experiment and its variations. For example, when participants chose the voltage themselves, few gave maximum punishment to the “learner.” Far from being sadistic by nature, most people were reluctant to inflict painful shocks. Surprisingly, people overwhelmingly resisted the experimenter’s instructions when they were joined by two “rebellious companions” who refused to follow orders. Imagine how each of us could be a force for good if we joined forces against authoritarian influences.

Zooming out to the big picture, we find that Milgram’s research shows the seriousness of choosing the right leaders, whether in the boardroom or in political office. Ultimately, those in charge can influence many others to follow their instructions. It’s as important to understand now as it was half a century ago.

The authoritarianism that drove Milgram’s work remains. Increasing worldwideAnd with it, violations of core democratic values ​​such as fairness, transparency, openness, protection from harm, and avoidance of conflicts of interest have become commonplace. In response, research programs examining the decline of democracy and the rise of totalitarian governance are growing, not only in psychology but also in adjacent fields such as public policy, political science, sociology, and philosophy. Therefore, it is important to correct misconceptions about Milgram’s work.

Are you a scientist specializing in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read any recent peer-reviewed papers you’d like to write about? Submit your proposal scientific americanDaisy Yuhas, editor of Mind Matters dyuhas@sciam.com.

This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the author. scientific american.