The Milgram Experiment By Saul Mcleod Published 2007

The Milgram Experimentbysaul Mcleodpublished2007milgram Selected Part

The Milgram Experiment by Saul McLeod published in 2007 was a study on obedience conducted at Yale University. Participants were recruited through newspaper advertisements, and roles of 'learner' and 'teacher' were assigned using a fixed draw of lots, ensuring the participant was always the teacher, with a confederate (Mr. Wallace) acting as the learner. The procedure involved the participant, in the role of teacher, administering electric shocks of increasing intensity to the learner whenever an incorrect answer was given, with voltage levels from 15 to 450 volts. The learner was strapped to electrodes and pretended to receive shocks, with the experimenter urging the teacher to continue despite protests, following specific prods. The results showed that 65% of participants continued to the highest shock level, demonstrating a high level of obedience to authority figures. Milgram's multiple variations of the experiment indicated that ordinary individuals tend to follow authority commands even when they involve harming others. The conclusion drawn was that obedience is ingrained in human behavior, often influenced by authoritative legitimacy rooted in moral and legal perceptions. The findings raise questions about obedience in societal atrocities, such as during the Nazi era, and how authority influences moral decision-making.

Paper For Above instruction

The Milgram experiment, conducted by psychologist Saul McLeod and published in 2007, remains one of the most influential studies in understanding obedience and authority in human behavior. The experiment aimed to assess how ordinary people respond to authority figures instructing them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience, particularly focusing on the willingness to administer painful electric shocks to others. The setup, method, results, and broader implications of Milgram's work shed light on human psychology, societal obedience, and the dark side of authority’s influence, linking to larger themes of moral compliance and collective atrocities in history.

To comprehend the significance of Milgram’s experiment, it is essential to understand its meticulous design. Participants, recruited via newspaper advertisements, believed they were taking part in a study on learning and memory at Yale University. Roles were assigned through a rigged draw of lots, with the participant always being the 'teacher' and a confederate, Mr. Wallace, the 'learner.' Wallace was strapped to electrodes in a different room, purportedly to receive electric shocks, with a shock generator connected to the teacher’s switchboard. The learner's responses were predetermined to be incorrect, compelling the teacher to deliver shocks of increasing voltage levels, beginning from 15 volts and escalating to 450 volts, marked as ‘XXX’ with a warning of danger. The experimenter, played by an actor dressed in a lab coat, prompted the teacher to continue administering shocks through a series of four prods if they hesitated or refused, emphasizing the importance of following orders regardless of moral conflict. This procedural setup created a compelling context to test obedience under authoritative pressure.

The findings from Milgram’s study were startling. An overwhelming 65% of participants proceeded to the highest shock level, illustrating a significant propensity for obedience even when the shocks would potentially cause severe harm. Moreover, all participants continued to at least 300 volts, demonstrating a strong compliance trend. Milgram's exploration extended to 18 variations of the original experiment, adjusting situational factors such as proximity of authority, location, or the presence of dissent, which consistently influenced obedience levels. This robust methodological approach confirmed that obedience was not merely situational but deeply embedded in human psychology. The key implication was that ordinary individuals are capable of committing acts of cruelty under authoritative influence, which challenges assumptions about innate morality versus social conditioning.

The broader societal and moral implications of Milgram’s experiment connect to historical atrocities, particularly the Holocaust. The question arises: Does Milgram’s work validate Hannah Arendt’s concept of the “banality of evil,” or Griffin’s hypothesis that the capacity for atrocity is woven into human nature and remains a ‘secret’ within society? Griffin posited that the capacity for monstrous acts is not solely the result of pathological individuals but also conditioned by societal structures and authority figures. Milgram’s findings support this view, suggesting that widespread obedience to authority can lead ordinary people to perpetrate extraordinary acts of harm, thus lending credibility to Griffin’s assertion that the roots of evil are societal and systemic rather than limited to ‘monsters’ or inherently wicked individuals.

The experiment also raises ethical concerns about the manipulation of participants under the guise of scientific inquiry. While the findings shed light on obedience, they highlight the potential for psychological harm and ethical dilemmas in conducting such studies. Nonetheless, Milgram’s research remains pivotal in understanding how authority influences moral boundaries and personal responsibility. It underscores the importance of critically examining authority structures and fostering moral courage to resist unethical commands, especially in contexts where abuses of power are normalized.

Conclusion

Milgram's obedience studies reveal that ordinary individuals are susceptible to following authoritative commands that conflict with their personal morals, emphasizing the power of situational factors over individual character. These findings deepen our understanding of societal complicity in atrocities, such as those committed during the Nazi regime, aligning with Griffin’s view that evil can reside within society’s structure rather than in inherently evil individuals. Recognizing the influence of authority on moral decision-making underscores the necessity of moral education and critical thinking to prevent human acts of cruelty driven by obedience. Thus, Milgram’s work remains a stark reminder of the ease with which societal forces can diminish personal responsibility and moral judgment, warning us to remain vigilant against oppressive authority systems.

References

• Blass, T. (2004). The Milgram Paradigm After 40 Years: Some New Findings. Journal of Social Issues, 60(3), 515-528.
• Miller, A. G. (2009). The Social Psychology of Obedience. Routledge.
• McLeod, Saul. (2007). Milgram’s Obedience Study. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
• Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11.
• Hoffman, B. (2003). Obedience, Authority and the Holocaust. Social Philosophy & Policy, 20(2), 253-278.
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2002). Social Identity and the Destruction of Social Reality. Psychological Inquiry, 13(2), 86-93.
• Todorov, A. (2004). Understanding the Mind of the Holocaust Perpetrators. The Journal of Social Issues, 60(3), 576–596.
• Sapolsky, R. (1998). Why Scapegoats and Obedience to Authority Are Common in Human Societies. The Biologist, 45(3), 146-153.
• Hannah Arendt. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Viking Press.