A few months before the start of the study in 1961, a high-profile trial began in Israel against Adolf Eichmann, the Gestapo head of the department responsible for "solving the Jewish question." The Eichmann trial gave rise to such a thing as “the banality of evil” - under this title a book by The New Yorker journalist Hannah Arendt, who was present at the trial, was published. Observation of Eichmann led Arendt to the idea that there was nothing demonic or psychopathic about his figure. According to the journalist, this was the most ordinary careerist who was used to following the orders of his superiors without further questions, no matter what the work itself implied, even if it was massacres.

In an attempt to explain the history of atrocities perpetrated by mankind, similar to those that took place during the Second World War, Yale University professor, psychologist and sociologist Stanley Milgram decided on an experiment. The experience of the scientist has become a kind of canonical example, which is studied by students of psychological faculties around the world. Milgram outlined the study in several stages, one of which was to conduct it outside the United States, namely in Germany. However, after processing the first data obtained as a result of working with residents of the town of New Haven, Connecticut, Milgram pushed this idea aside. There was plenty of material, in his opinion. True, a little later, the professor nevertheless traveled outside the United States in order to conduct similar experiments in order to confirm his theory.

Milgram's experiment has become one of the canonical experiments in psychology

Milgram disguised the true experiment and recruited volunteers to participate in the "scientific study of memory." The brochure stated that each volunteer would receive $4 and an additional 50 cents for travel expenses. The money will be issued in any case, regardless of the result, simply upon arrival at the laboratory. The process should have taken no more than an hour. Everyone aged 20 to 50, of different sexes and professions, was invited: businessmen, clerks, simple workers, hairdressers, salesmen and others. However, students and high school students could not take part in the experiment.

Stanley Milgram with students, 1961

The experience was presented to the participants as a study of the effects of pain on memory. The volunteer, upon arrival at the laboratory, met there another similar test subject, whose role was played by a dummy actor. The experimenter explained that each of them would play "teacher" or "student" - depending on how the lot decides. The task of the “student” was to memorize as many phrases as possible from a list prepared in advance (for example, “red house” or “hot asphalt”). The “teacher” had to test the “student”, checking how many pairs of words he remembered, and in case of an incorrect answer, beat the last with a current discharge. With each incorrect answer, the “teacher” had to increase the discharge strength by 15 volts. The maximum electric shock was 450 volts.

Before the start of the experiment, all real subjects were asked to choose a piece of paper where their role would be indicated. The dummy study participant also drew lots. All the pieces of paper said "teacher", and the real participant always acted only in this role. Then the leader of the experiment escorted the “student” to a special room, where he was seated in a chair and the electrodes were connected. The whole procedure was defiantly carried out in front of the “teacher”, who was then led to a neighboring office and offered to take a seat in front of an electric generator. In addition to the marks on the scale (from 15 to 450 in increments of 15 volts), there was also a gradation in groups characterizing the strength of the blow (from “weak” to “dangerous” and “hard to bear”) so that the “teacher” had an approximate idea of ​​the degree of pain. As a demonstration before the start of the experiment, the "teachers" were beaten with a light shock.

For the wrong answer, the “teacher” had to beat the “student” with a current

The “teacher” read out to the “student” the first word from each pair and offered a choice of four options for ending the combination. The answer was displayed on the scoreboard, which was located in front of the subject's eyes. The task of the “teacher” was not only to start a discharge in case of an error, but also to warn the “student” about this, notifying the force of the blow, and then inform the correct version. The experiment was to continue until the "student" remembered all the phrases, which were subsequently read to him again. Milgram set the bar: if the subject reached the mark of 450 volts, the experimenter insisted that he continue to beat the "student" with the maximum discharge, but after three clicks on this lever, the study was completed.

"Student" is connected to the electrodes

In fact, no one was shocked during the experiment, of course. The task of the decoy participant was to act out suffering - gradually, with an increase in the strength of the discharge, he moved from screams to pleas to stop the test. Sometimes the "student" calmed down, feigning either a loss of consciousness, or a heart attack. If the answer to the question was not received within 5-10 seconds, this should be regarded as an error and, accordingly, be shocked. The “teacher”, who heard all the groans, knocks and requests through the wall, at some point could express a desire to immediately stop the torture, but the task of the curator was to convince him to go further. According to Milgram, 4 phrases were used with varying degrees of insistence: from "please continue" to "you must continue, you have no choice." To questions about how painful this or that discharge would be, the experimenter answered that there was no threat to life, in any case. The curator could also assure the subject that he took full responsibility for the condition of the other participant. It is important to emphasize that the “teacher” did not receive any threats in case of refusal to continue. However, if he still did not agree after the 4th, most “convincing” phrase, then the process was terminated.

In the basic version of the experiment that Milgram presented to the world, out of 40 subjects, 26 (that is, 65%) reached the end, that is, “hit” the second participant with a maximum discharge of 450 volts. One person stopped at 375 volts, one at 360, and another at 345. Two more stopped the experiment when they got to 330 volts. Four people refused to participate when they reached 315 volts, and five after the 300 volt mark.

65% of the participants in the experiment reached the maximum electrical scale

According to the recollections of one of the participants in the study, Joe Dimow, after the experiment was interrupted, the curator showed him several images and asked him to describe his thoughts on this matter. In one of the pictures, a young teacher brandished a whip at a child, and the director of the school supervised the “flogging”. Joe was then asked to outline the degree of responsibility of each of the participants in the experiment: the "teacher", the "student" and the facilitator. After that, a dummy participant was taken out of the second room, where there was a chair with electrodes. According to Dimou, he looked terrible, his face was in tears.

In 1961 and 1962, Milgram conducted a series of experiments that varied somewhat. Somewhere the "teacher" did not hear the groans of the "student" behind the wall, somewhere he was in the same room with the "student" (in this case, there was less obedience to the curator). Sometimes it was the task of the “teacher” to press the hand of the “student” to the electrode himself, which also reduced the percentage of obedience. Milgram played out scenarios with several dummy "teachers" and a couple of curators who could not agree among themselves. In the event of disputes between "administrative persons", the subjects showed more freedom of will, but under the pressure of the opinion of "colleagues" - the same "teachers", as a rule, they gave in. In some cases, the "student" warned in advance about heart problems.

One of the participants in the experiment in front of the generator

Milgram's experiment received a lot of critical acclaim. Thus, it has been argued that a study cannot initially be considered "pure" if its participants were not disclosed to the true purpose. There were many questions about the procedure. Were the “teachers” fully aware of the degree of pain from the electric shock? Could their attitude to the experiment have been influenced by the fact that it was supervised by a professor from Yale University himself? Did the subject have sadistic tendencies? Did they not have a special predisposition to submit to authority?

The participants in the experiment were not villains, but the most ordinary inhabitants

As a result of subsequent similar studies both in the United States and abroad, Milgram was able to discard many of these questions that called into question the representativeness of the experiment. The professor argued that the results would vary slightly depending on the country in which the study takes place. According to Milgram, a key role in such behavior is played by the idea rooted in the mind of a person about the need to obey the authorities and authorities. At the same time, in fact, any person dressed appropriately can act as an "authority". In this case, such a representative of authority, the chief giving orders, was a researcher in a white coat. According to the professor's assumptions, without the presence of the "authority" who insisted on continuing the execution, the experiment would have ended much faster. Milgram tried to argue that the vast majority were incapable of putting up any serious resistance to the person they considered to be invested with power, but at the same time emphasized that the study participants themselves were no more villains and sadists than the most ordinary, average member of modern society.

K., 2010

One of the greatest experiments in the history of psychological science was first described by Stanley Milgram in 1963 in the article Submission: A Study in Behavior. In general terms, it is known to many students and, as a rule, social science professors are willing to comment on it in the context of methodological problems of social research, ethical issues, or when it comes to submitting people to social pressure. attitude towards others, why acts of cruelty and crimes against humanity are possible. He came to the conclusion that the ability to obey is a deeply defining tendency of human behavior, its action can negate the ability to act in accordance with moral standards and level sympathy for other people. In his experiment, Milgram set out to find out what measure of "obedience" is inherent to a person when they are influenced by authorities and ordered to act contrary to their own moral principles, how much suffering some people are ready to inflict on others who are completely innocent when such actions are related to their duties, and to what degree of submission people usually bow under pressure from an authority figure. Milgram's talent as an experimenter 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 in fact no harm was done. Milgram also created a model of a laboratory situation in which factors were involved quite accurately, hypothetically, as the researcher believed, influencing the manifestation of subordination. The participant had to to perform in the study the role of an assistant to the experimenter, who gave orders that contradicted the elementary 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, moreover, according to this tendency, a person can violate moral norms. Milgram believed that the operation of the tendency to submit to an authority figure causes a person to hurt another person (which she had never done before) if she received an order from someone whom she considered an authority. In the experiment, conditions were created to determine the degree of subordination of one person to another. Milgram designed a rather ugly-looking electric current generator with thirty lever switches. Each lever was marked with a label (from 30 to 450 volts), and the switches were labeled: “weak electric shock”, “medium impact”, “dangerous: powerful impact”. The participants in the experiment were 40 men aged 20 to 50 years, among them 15 people (both qualified and unskilled). 16 merchants and businessmen, 9 specialists of various professions. They were all invited to participate in a paid study through a newspaper advertisement or by mail (for Yale University research on memory and learning). Each participant was paid $4.50 to participate in the experiment. Participants were told that they would be paid no matter how they behaved in the experiment. Actors also took part in the study. One of them played the role of an experimenter, was dressed in a gray lab 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, the real participant, when he entered the social interaction laboratory, 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 a "teacher", and a "sham" - a "student". The "student" in another room was strapped to a chair and connected to electrodes connected to a current generator in the next room. At the same time, they explained that a special paste was used, which conducts electric current and avoids burns and blisters on the skin. All actions were performed in front of the real author. The “student’s” hands were fixed in such a way that he could reach up to four buttons marked as abed, answering the “teacher’s” question. The “teacher” must read out the list of words and check how he remembered them “ student". 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 next wrong answer. The experiment was so reliably organized that the participants could not guess that no one was actually receiving any “punishments”. With an increase in incorrect answers, tension increased, the “student” began to scream that he was ill (the phrases were recorded on tape the day before), complained of pain in his heart. When the voltage reached 300 volts, the “student” started kicking the wall and demanded to let him go, then fell silent and did not answer questions anymore. The "teacher" explained that silence is assessed as an incorrect answer and one must act according to the instructions. Most of the participants asked the experimenter at some point whether to continue by increasing the tension further. The researcher ordered to continue, gave a series of commands, showing more and more severity, forcing, if necessary, to act more persistently. The degree of submission was considered the level of tension at which the participant refused to continue the experiment. Since there were 30 switches on the generator, each subject could get 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 levels of tension were called "defiant" (defiant). The subject observed the suffering of the "innocent victim", understood the real danger to the life of the "student", however, the vast majority of participants followed the researcher's orders and did not dare to stop the experiment. Milgram asked his colleagues, as well as Yale graduates who majored in psychology, to predict possible outcomes. Their estimates ranged from 1 to 3%, with an average of 1.2%. Beginning psychologists and seasoned professionals alike believed that the top hitters could not exceed 3%. The 39 psychiatrists Milgram approached gave an even less accurate prediction. They believed that only one person in a thousand would increase the voltage to the limit value, and to half, i.e. up to 225 volts - no more than half of the subjects. Therefore, none of the psychologists could not 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. Table. Results of the experiment by S. Milgram When following the experimenter's commands, all the subjects increased the punishment and reached the level of 300 volts (when the "student" hit the wall, begged him to 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 the subjects went all the way to the maximum. Only 14 participants refused to follow orders. 26 subjects (65%) completed the experiment at around 450 volts. They were in a state of severe stress, worried about the human condition, showed dislike for the experimenters, but still obeyed. In the last part of the experiment, when the student was silent, the subjects were extremely excited. In order to remove this state of discomfort, to 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” also appeared and made friends with each subject. In general, the study demonstrated such a property of behavior as subordination to authority, and its deep rootedness in human nature. The participants followed the experimenter's orders, although they experienced discomfort and moral internal conflict. The experiment was repeated in 21 series by Milgram personally. The fact that approximately two-thirds of the subjects electrocuted their victim made a strong impression on everyone involved in this study. When interpreting the results, the following hypothetical interpretations were formulated.

1. Participants were influenced by the authority of Yale University.
2. They were male, so they showed the inherent tendency of this sex to act aggressively.
3. The subjects were not aware of the harm and pain caused by electric shocks.
4. The participants were prone to sadism, so they were content to be able to inflict suffering on others.

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

1. Milgram did the research outside of Yale University, renting a very squalid room in Bridgeport, Connecticut, adorned with a "Bridgeport Research Association" sign. At the same time, the scientist did not refer to Yale University. The Bridgeport Research Association was introduced as a commercial organization. The results of the experiment conducted under such conditions were quite close to the main study: 48% of the subjects agreed to go through the entire scale of punishments.
2. In another research series, Milgram showed that the female "teachers" behaved in the same way as the males in the first experiment. The results indicated that the fairer sex was not more cordial and compassionate.
3. In order to determine whether the participants were aware of the physical harm and the degree of pain shock experienced by the victim, the following detail was entered before the start of the study: the “student” stated that he had a bad heart and would not be able to withstand the pain of electric shocks. During the study, the "student" complained of pain in the heart, begged to stop the process. However, such changes did not make any special 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 proved 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 of special tests of personality traits indicated that they were quite normal and balanced faces. Describing his subjects, Milgram said that they were quite ordinary people, according to which one can say that "they are you and me."
5. In a situation where the experimenter went out 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 the participants themselves had the opportunity to determine the measure of punishment, 95% stopped within 150 volts.

So, we note again that all the hypotheses were refuted. The results of the study were not influenced by the authority of the university. The gender of the person under study did not affect the results obtained. The subjects were well aware of the danger of electric shocks for the participants in the experiment. at least they were definitely not sadists. When instructions were given over the phone during the experiment, "obedience" became less (it was characteristic of only 20% of the participants). In this situation, the subjects only pretended to continue the experiment. If a participant got into a situation with two researchers, one of whom ordered to stop and the other insisted on continuing, then he refused to continue participating in the experiment. Milgram also investigated the role of other factors that could strengthen or weaken the tendency to submission. It was found that the emotional distance between "teacher" and "student" changes the level of submission. The highest level of submission was achieved when the "student" was in another room and could not be seen or heard. The level of obedience in this situation was 93%, as many subjects reached the maximum level of punishment. If both participants were in the same room and the subject had to press the hands of the "student" to the electrodes himself, the level of subordination dropped to 30%. The scientist also studied how the distance between the authoritative person and the subject affected the level of subordination. When the experimenter was outside the room and gave commands to the subject by phone, the level of obedience dropped to 21%. research, wanted to find out why German citizens participated in the destruction 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 prone to obedience (subordination). However, after conducting the first experiment, he stated: "I found so much obedience here that I do not see the need to conduct this experiment in Germany." that have been held in the US and other countries. It was found that from 60 to 66% of the studied individuals reach the end of the scale, and the data does not depend on the time and place of the study. What makes ordinary people behave in this way? authorities. The determining role was played by the inability of the subjects to openly resist the "boss" (researcher), who prescribed to perform tasks, despite the severe pain inflicted on the "student". Milgram said that it was obvious that if the researcher had allowed the experiment to be stopped, the participants would have complied immediately. They did not strive to complete the tasks, they saw the suffering of the victim 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 release the victim, clutched their heads, clenched their fists so that the nails reflected on their palms, bit their lips, some laughed nervously. Psychologists, Milgram's colleagues, were behind the transparent glass with a mirror effect, who watched the experiment. Milgram cites the testimony of one of the eyewitnesses: “I saw how at the beginning a respectable businessman entered the laboratory, smiling and confident. After 20 minutes of working with voltage switches, he already looked completely different, a loser, then grumbled, was on the verge of a nervous breakdown ... He trembled, stuttered, constantly pulled his earlobe and wringed his hands. At some point, he grabbed his head and quietly whispered: “Oh God! Stop this!". Nevertheless, he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter and listened to him without fail (obeyed him) by 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.

1. The reason for the behavior is significant regulatory pressure. The experimenter exerts quite considerable pressure, forcing the subject to carry out his orders.
2. Tendency to Share Responsibility: Participants tend to hold others accountable for their behavior in crisis or ambiguous situations.
3. Conflict of social norms. When the subject hits the victim for the first time, he forces himself to carry out the order, puts pressure on himself.

Milgram in his experiment noted such significant points. First of all, an extremely strong tendency to submissiveness. The study involved ordinary people who are not prone to cruelty. Milgram pointed out that people behaved so submissively, breaking 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 consisted of, 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 coercive force was the situation itself, which triggered the habitual behavior. The participants in the study, following the commands of the experimenter, experienced great excitement and tension. Since the discomfort and excitement were strong enough and noticeable during observation, there were expectations that, in the end, the subjects would refuse to follow the commands. Milgram himself identified the following reasons for obedience - from the point of view of the subjects:

1. The experiment is being carried out 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 a “teacher”, and he is a “student”. So it happened, it's a coincidence. Next time it might be different.
5. I get paid to do my job, so I have to do it right.
6. I do not 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 both of us that the electric current was neither painful nor safe.

The Milgram experiment is perhaps the last psychological experiment that has had 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 get to know it for the first time. Criticism of the experiment. Milgram pointed out the problem of ethical standards in research with people rather sharply. Critics of this experiment expressed their position in a rather harsh form, noting that such studies are unacceptable, since 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 distrust of psychologists or other persons in positions of authority. Psychologists also expressed doubts about the validity of Milgram's conclusions. The subjects came to the laboratory, they made commitments 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 a measure of dangerous stress for the subjects - as excessive and unjustified. Defending the work done, 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. adults, active, capable of accepting or rejecting actions recommended by them.” Milgram's experiment was actively discussed and evaluated by psychologists. The controversy revolved around two issues: how much do the conclusions of the study correspond to the real behavior of people and what principles are important to take into account in psychological research in general. The American psychologist Blas, a young colleague of Milgram's, conducted a thorough review of all the research that examined the problems of obedience and related to Milgram's early experiments. Blas says Milgram's findings are fair, also universal, 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 hopes of psychologists and democratic public institutions that modern people are no longer so subject to authorities and can act autonomously and protest, not agreeing to obey the orders of the authorities. In particular, in his review, Blas also found from research that there is no difference between the subordination of men and women. An important issue in the discussions around the Milgram study, which again and again attracts the attention of researchers, is whether it is possible to avoid the deception that is so often and eagerly practiced by researchers. Why do psychologists so easily choose deceit, how truthful they are, claiming that they are doing it for the sake of science, why do they not choose for themselves a more ethical strategy of behavior? How to protect people from the practice of irresponsible deception of the researcher, because the openness of the study, as a rule, leads to the inability to obtain really important data. Some psychologists believe that at the very least, participants should be informed that they will not be able to know the whole truth about the study, and let them then decide whether they agree to participate on such terms (“knowledgeable consent”) (D. Vendler, 1996). Of course, psychologists should be more thoughtful about the fact that deception is practiced in research without serious necessity, since there is no justification for disrespect for participants. Psychologists should look for experimental strategies that will provide them with respect for the participants in the study and a qualitative scientific result. In conclusion, we note that, in our opinion, 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, while personal factors do not work. In the Milgram experiment, 14 subjects disobeyed the experimenter. Blas himself pointed out that personality factors (traits, beliefs) are more determining than the tendency to submit to authority.

In the article "Submission: a study of behavior" ( Behavioral Study of Obedience), and later in the book "Submission to Authority: An Experimental Study" (Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View; 1974).

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5

Stanley Milgram's experiment on obedience (obedience, submission) to authority

Experiments on students in the USSR: continued

Games, evolution and the social brain - Klyucharev Vasily

Robert Waldinger. The longest experiment

[a little about] GESTURES IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

Subtitles

Introduction

In his experiment, Milgram tried to clarify the question: how much suffering are ordinary people willing to inflict on other, completely innocent people, if such infliction of pain is part of their work duties? It demonstrated the inability of the subjects to openly resist the "boss" (in this case, the researcher, dressed in a lab coat), who ordered them to complete the task, despite the supposedly great suffering inflicted on another participant in the experiment (in reality, the decoy actor). The results of the experiment showed that the need to obey authorities was so deeply rooted in our minds that the subjects continued to follow the instructions, despite moral suffering and strong internal conflict.

background

In fact, Milgram began his research to clarify the question of how German citizens during the years of Nazi domination could participate in the destruction of millions of innocent people in concentration camps. After fine-tuning his experimental methods in the United States, Milgram planned to go with them to Germany, where he believed the people were very obedient. However, after the very first experiment he conducted in New Haven (Connecticut), it became clear that there was no need to travel to Germany and that one could continue to engage in scientific research close to home. "I found so much obedience," Milgram said, "that I don't see the need to do this experiment in Germany."

Subsequently, the Milgram experiment was nevertheless repeated in Holland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria and Jordan, and the results were the same as in the United States. A detailed account of these experiments is published in Stanley Milgram's book Obedience to Authority (1973) or, for example, in Meeus and Raaijmakers (Meeus W. H. J., Raaijmakers Q. A. W. (1986). Administrative obedience: Carrying out orders to use psychological-administrative violence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 311-324).

Description of the experiment

The participants were presented with this experiment as a study of the effect of pain on memory. The experiment involved an experimenter, a subject, and an actor who played the role of another subject. It was stated that one of the participants ("student") must memorize pairs of words from a long list until he remembers each pair, and the other ("teacher") - check the memory of the first and punish him for each mistake with an increasingly stronger electric discharge.

At the beginning of the experiment, the roles of teacher and student were distributed between the subject and the actor "by lot" using folded sheets of paper with the words "teacher" and "student", and the subject always got the role of teacher. After that, the “student” was defiantly tied to a chair with electrodes. The “teacher” received a “demonstration” electric shock.

The "teacher" went into another room and sat down at the table in front of the generator. The generator was a box, on the front panel of which were placed 30 switches 15 to 450V, in 15V increments. The experimenter explains to the "teacher" that when each switch is pressed, the corresponding voltage is applied to the student, and when the switch is released, the current stops. The pressed switch remains in the down position so that the “teacher” does not forget which switch has already been pressed and which has not. Above each switch the voltage corresponding to it is written, in addition, groups of switches are signed with explanatory phrases: “Weak blow” (eng. Slight shock), “Moderate shock” (Moderate shock), “Strong shock” (Strong shock), “Very strong blow "(Very strong shock), "Intense blow" ( Intense shock), "Extremely intense blow" (Extreme intensity shock), "Dangerous: hard to bear blow" ( Danger: Severe shock). The last two switches are graphically isolated and labeled "X X X". The instrument panel is made in high quality, there are inscriptions about the purpose (generator 15 -450 V) and the manufacturer ( Type ZLB, Dyson Instrument Company, Waltham, Mass.), there is a pointer voltmeter on the panel. Pressing the switches was accompanied by the ignition of the corresponding bulbs, as well as the buzzing and clicking of the relay. In other words, the device gave a serious impression of being real, giving no reason to doubt the authenticity of the experiment.

After the briefing, the experiment began, and the "teacher" read out to the "student" a list of associative pairs of words that the "student" had to remember. Then the "teacher" read out the first word of the pair and four possible answers. The “student” had to choose the correct option and press one of the four buttons corresponding to it at his fingertips. The student's response was displayed on a light board in front of the teacher. In case of an error, the "teacher" reported that the answer was incorrect, reported what voltage the "student" would receive, pressed the button, supposedly punishing the "student" with a shock, and then reported the correct answer. Starting with 15 V, the "teacher" with each new error had to increase the voltage in steps of 15 V up to 450 V. Upon reaching 450 V, the experimenter demanded that the "teacher" continue to use the last switch (450 V). After using the last switch three times, the experiment was terminated.

In fact, the actor who played the "student" only pretended to get hit, the student's answers were standardized and selected in such a way that on average there were three wrong answers for every correct answer. Thus, when the “teacher” read the questions to the end of the first sheet, the student was given a blow of 105 V, after which the “teacher” took the second sheet, and the experimenter asked to start again from 15 V, and, having reached the end of the sheet, start reading the questions again, until the student has learned all the pairs. This very "teacher" was given the opportunity to get comfortable and get used to his duties, in addition, it was clearly shown that the experiment would not stop when the end of the list of questions was reached.

If the subject showed hesitation, then the experimenter demanded the continuation of one of the predetermined phrases:

• "Please continue" (Please continue / Please go on);
• "The experiment requires you to continue" ( Experiment requires that you continue);
• "It is absolutely necessary that you continue" ( It is absolutely essential that you continue);
• "You have no other choice, you must continue" ( You have no other choice, you must go on).

These phrases were spoken in order, beginning with the first, when the "teacher" refused to continue the experiment. If the "teacher" continued to refuse, the next phrase from the list was said. If the "teacher" refused after the 4th phrase, the experiment was interrupted.

In addition, there were two special phrases. In case the subject asked if the “student” would be harmed, the experimenter answered: “Despite the fact that electric shocks may be painful, they will not lead to long-term tissue damage” ( Although the shock may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage). If the subject paid attention to the fact that the “student” refused to continue, the experimenter answered: “Whether the student likes it or not, you must continue until he learns all pairs of words correctly” ( Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly). In the course of the experiment in Milgram's film, it is clear that the experimenter, if necessary, used other phrases, for example, he assured that he himself was responsible if something happened to the "student". At the same time, however, the experimenter did not threaten the doubting "teachers" in any way.

Participants received a monetary reward of $4.5 for participation in the experiment, however, before starting, the experimenter warned that the money was paid for coming to the laboratory, and they would remain with the subjects, regardless of what happened next. Subsequent studies on 43 unremunerated subjects who were students at the same Yale University showed similar results.

The main version of the experiment

In the first version of the experiment, which is described by Milgram in his Behavioral Study of Obedience, the "student" was in a soundproof room adjacent to the "teacher". The “teacher” did not hear the exclamations of the “student”, but at 300 volts he began to knock on the wall distinctly for the “teacher”. After that, the student stopped giving answers using the scoreboard. The experimenter demanded that the absence of a response within 5–10 seconds be interpreted as an incorrect response and that the next blow be given. On the next blow (315 V), knocks were also heard on the wall without an answer to the scoreboard, in the future, neither answers nor sounds were given from the student.

Movie Obedience

Milgram's documentary "Obedience", showing the progress of the experiment, shows a modified version. In this variant, the “student” warns before starting the experiment that he had heart problems in the past. In addition, the "student" was not soundproofed from the "teacher", so that the latter could hear the screams from the electric shocks. At 150 volts, the “student” actor began to demand to stop the experiment and complain about his heart, but the experimenter said to the “teacher”: “The experiment must be continued. Please continue." As the tension increased, the actor acted out more and more discomfort, then intense pain, and finally yelled for the experiment to be stopped. At 300 volts, the “student” declared that he refused to participate further in the experiment and would not give answers, but continued to scream heart-rendingly at the appointment of a blow. Starting from 345 volts, the "student" stopped screaming and showing signs of life.

The “student” demanded to be released, to stop the experiment, complained about his heart, refused to answer, but did not scold the “teacher” or the experimenter, did not threaten revenge or prosecution, and even simply did not address the “teacher” directly.

results

In one series of experiments of the main version of the experiment, 26 subjects out of 40, instead of taking pity on the victim, continued to increase the voltage (up to 450 V) until the researcher gave the order to end the experiment. Only five subjects (12.5%) stopped at a voltage of 300 V, when the first signs of discontent appeared from the victim (knocking on the wall) and the answers stopped coming. Four more (10%) stopped at 315 volts when the victim knocked on the wall a second time without giving an answer. Two (5%) refused to continue at 330V when both responses and knocks stopped coming from the victim. One person each - at the next three levels (345, 360 and 375 V). The remaining 26 out of 40 reached the end of the scale.

Debate and speculation

A few days before the start of his experiment, Milgram asked several of his colleagues (graduate students in psychology at Yale University, where the experiment was conducted) to look at the study design and try to guess how many “teacher” subjects would be, no matter what, increase the discharge voltage until they are stopped (at a voltage of 450 V) by the experimenter. Most of the psychologists interviewed suggested that between one and two percent of all subjects would do so.

39 psychiatrists were also interviewed. They gave an even less accurate prediction, assuming that no more than 20% of the subjects would continue the experiment to half the voltage (225 V), and only one in a thousand would increase the voltage to the limit. Consequently, no one expected the amazing results that were obtained - contrary to all forecasts, most of the subjects obeyed the instructions of the scientist who led the experiment and punished the “student” with electric shock even after he started screaming and kicking the wall.

Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain the cruelty shown by the subjects.

• The subjects were hypnotized by the authority of Yale University.
• All subjects were male, so they had a biological propensity for aggressive actions.
• The subjects did not understand how much harm, not to mention pain, such powerful electrical discharges could cause to the “students”.
• The subjects simply had a sadistic streak and enjoyed the opportunity to inflict suffering.
• All those who participated in the experiment were people who were inclined to submit to the authority of the experimenter and cause suffering to the subject, since the rest simply refused to participate in the experiment right away or to learn its details, thus not inflicting a single electric shock on the “student”. Naturally, those who refused to participate in the experiment were not included in the statistics.

In further experiments, none of these assumptions was confirmed.

The results did not depend on the authority of the university

Milgram repeated the experiment, renting a building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, under the banner of the Bridgeport Research Association and disclaiming any reference to Yale. The Bridgeport Research Association was presented as a commercial organization. The results changed slightly: 48% of the subjects agreed to reach the end of the scale.

The gender of the subject did not affect the results.

Another experiment showed that the gender of the subject is not critical; The female "teachers" behaved exactly like the male teachers in Milgram's first experiment. This dispelled the myth of the soft-heartedness of women.

People were aware of the danger of electric current for the "student"

Another experiment examined the assumption that the subjects underestimated the potential physical harm they caused to the victim. Before starting the additional experiment, the "student" was instructed to declare that he had a sick heart and would not withstand strong electric shocks. During the experiment, the “student” began to shout: “That's it! Let me out of here! I told you that I have a bad heart. My heart is starting to worry me! I refuse to continue! Let me out!" However, the behavior of the "teachers" did not change; 65% of the subjects conscientiously performed their duties, bringing the stress to the maximum.

The subjects were ordinary people

The suggestion that the subjects had a disturbed psyche (or a special tendency to obey) was also rejected as unfounded. The people who responded to Milgram's announcement and expressed a desire to take part in an experiment to study the effect of punishment on memory were average citizens in terms of age, profession and educational level. Moreover, the answers of the subjects to the questions of special tests that allow assessing personality showed that these people were quite normal and had a fairly stable psyche. In fact, they were no different from ordinary people or, as Milgram said, "they are you and me."

The subjects were not sadists

The assumption that the subjects took pleasure in the suffering of the victim, i.e. were sadists, has been refuted by several experiments.

• When the experimenter left and his "assistant" remained in the room, only 20% agreed to continue the experiment.
• When the subject was given the right to choose the voltage himself, 95% remained within 150 volts.
• When instructions were given over the phone, obedience was greatly reduced (up to 20%). At the same time, many subjects pretended to continue the experiments.
• If the subject was confronted by two researchers, one of whom ordered to stop and the other insisted on continuing the experiment, the subject stopped the experiment.

Additional experiments

In 2002, Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland published in Psychology Today a summary of all replicates of the Milgram experiment done in the United States (with an average result of 61%) and outside (66%). The minimum result was 28%, the maximum - 91%. No significant dependence on the year of the experiment was found.

If Milgram is right and the participants in the experiment are ordinary people like us, then the question is: “What can make people behave in this way?” - becomes personal: "What can make us act this way?". Milgram is sure that we are deeply ingrained in our awareness of the need to obey authority. In his opinion, what played a decisive role in his experiments was the inability of the subjects to openly resist the "boss" (in this case, the researcher, dressed in a lab coat), who ordered the subjects to complete the task, despite the severe pain inflicted on the "student".

Milgram gives strong arguments to support his assumption. It was obvious to him that if the researcher did not demand to continue the experiment, the subjects would quickly leave the game. They did not want to complete the task and suffered, seeing the suffering of their victim. The subjects begged the experimenter to let them stop, and when he did not allow them, they continued to ask questions and press buttons. However, at the same time, the subjects perspired, trembled, muttered words of protest and again prayed for the release of the victim, clutched their heads, clenched their fists so hard that their nails dug into their palms, bit their lips until they bled, and some began to laugh nervously. Here is what a person who observed the experiment says:

I saw a respectable businessman enter the laboratory, smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was driven to a nervous breakdown. He trembled, stuttered, constantly tugged at his earlobe and wringed his hands. Once he hit his forehead with his fist and muttered, "Oh God, let's stop this." Nevertheless, he continued to react to every word of the experimenter and obeyed him unconditionally.

Milgram, 1963

Milgram conducted several additional experiments and as a result received data that even more convincingly testifies to the correctness of his assumption.

The subject refused to obey a person of his rank

So, in one case, he made significant changes to the script. Now the researcher told the "teacher" to stop, while the victim bravely insisted on continuing the experiment. The result speaks for itself: when only a subject like them demanded to continue, the subjects in 100% of cases refused to give at least one additional electric shock.

In another case, the researcher and the second "subject" reversed roles in such a way that the experimenter was tied to the chair. At the same time, the second "subject" ordered the "teacher" to continue, while the researcher protested violently. Again, not a single subject touched the button.

In the event of a conflict of authorities, the subject stopped actions

The propensity of subjects to unconditional obedience to authorities was confirmed by the results of another version of the main study. This time, the "teacher" was in front of two researchers, one of whom ordered the "teacher" to stop when the victim pleaded for release, and the other insisted on continuing the experiment. Contradictory orders led the subjects into confusion. Confused subjects looked from one researcher to another, asked both leaders to act in concert and give the same commands that could be carried out without hesitation. When the researchers continued to “quarrel” with each other, the “teachers” tried to understand which of the two was more important. In the end, not being able to obey exactly the authority, each subject-"teacher" began to act on the basis of his best intentions, and stopped punishing the "student".

Other variants of the experiment

• Milgram additionally carried out experiments in the variant when the "student" sits in the same room with the "teacher". In this case, obedience decreased.
• In another version of the experiment, also conducted by Milgram, the “student” was next to the “teacher” and “received” blows only if he pressed his hand to a metal plate. At 150 volts, the “student” refused to put his hand on the plate, and in this case the experimenter demanded that the “teacher” hold the “student” by the hand and forcefully put his hand on the plate. In this case, obedience was even less. Thus, the closeness of the victim has an inverse effect on obedience.
• In other variants, one or two additional "teachers" also participated in the experiment. They were also played by actors. In the case where the teacher-actor insisted on continuing, only 3 out of 40 subjects stopped the experiment. In another case, two "teacher" actors refused to continue the experiment - and 36 out of 40 subjects did the same.
• When one experimenter was a "student" and demanded to stop the experiment, and another experimenter demanded to continue - 100% of the subjects stopped it.

conclusions

According to Milgram, the findings indicate an interesting phenomenon: "This study showed an extremely strong willingness of normal adults to go who knows how far, following the directions of authority."

Haggard's study

In 2015, Patrick Haggard from University College London and colleagues from the Free University of Brussels conducted a new study in which the experiment was complicated. During this experiment, which included the removal of the EEG, it was revealed that a person relieves himself of responsibility for actions, regardless of the nature of the order given.

"obedience"

Volunteer subjects were asked to participate in memory studies. One person, the "teacher", read out a pair of words, and the other, the "student", had to memorize and repeat them. If the "student" was wrong, the "teacher" had to shock him, each time more and more powerful.

Here is what Milgram himself writes: “After applying a current of 135 volts, the student’s groans are heard, after 150 volts he shouts: “Hey! Let me out of here! I no longer want to participate in your experience!” These cries resound after each subsequent blow, becoming louder and more desperate. After receiving a shock of 180 volts, the student begs to stop: “It hurts! I can't take it anymore!" and a 270 volt shock causes
real scream. All this time, the student demands to be released, repeating that he does not want to participate in the experiment. After 300 volts, he screams in despair that he will no longer answer the teacher, after 315, having uttered a piercing cry, he repeats his refusal again. From that moment on, he no longer answers on his test and only emits heart-rending cries after each next discharge. Then it just shuts up."

Of course, the partner was Milgram's accomplice, and no one received real electric shocks. However, naive volunteers were sure that everything was really happening - while two-thirds of the participants in the experiment reached the last knife switch. It turns out that it is not too difficult to make a sadist and executioner out of any respectable citizen.

"Queue Invasion"

For most people, the rules of behavior in queues are a thing much more sacred than the Constitution or the Labor Code. In one of his studies, Milgram tried to figure out what happens when these rules are violated. His students lined up at the front of the line at the railway ticket office, saying in an indifferent tone, "Excuse me, I'd like to stand here." As a rule, protests or at least condemning views followed. If there were two “insolent” people, then the number of cases of discontent exceeded 90%.

Then the conditions of the experiment were slightly changed. One or two assistants played the role of a buffer - initially standing in line, they were next behind the "invasion point". The scenario “he climbs out of line” implies that the one who is confronted should be the first to start protesting. And since they were accomplices of the experimenter, they portrayed complete indifference. As a result, the level of discontent fell by almost 20 times - to 5%.

"Hello!"

A very simple experiment. Psychology students walked the streets of New York, trying to shake hands with random passers-by. Then they did the same in smaller settlements. In a metropolis, a handshake took place in 38.5% of cases, in small towns - in 66.7%.

"Lost Letters"

Sociologists and psychologists are always tormented: numerous surveys record only people's thoughts about what should be answered in a given situation, but how to find out what they really think? Milgram proposed the following experiment. The researcher quietly leaves on the streets, in parks, etc., a large number of unsent letters with an inscribed address and a stamp stuck on. Whoever finds this envelope must decide what to do: mail the letter? ignore? destroy?

It turned out that the choice largely depends on who the letter is addressed to. There were four address options: “To the Society of Friends of Communists”,
The Society of Friends of the Nazis, the Center for Medical Research, and a private individual named Walter Carnap. “I informed the FBI about our work, hoping to save the government the cost of exposing a non-existent conspiracy,” the social psychologist recalled.

In order for the sample to be large and uniform, the scientists initially tried to scatter letters from an airplane. “But this method, as it turned out, is not the best. Many letters ended up on the roofs of houses, on the carriageway of streets and in reservoirs. Worse, many of them were blown under the ailerons of our flying trough, which threatened to destroy not only the results of the study, but the aircraft itself, along with the pilot and distributor, ”wrote Milgram.

The results of the experiment were as follows: more than 70% of the letters addressed to the center of medical research and a private person were sent. As for the messages to the Nazis and Communists, only 25% of them were sent.

Later, this technique was used to find out how many Chinese people living in Hong Kong, Singapore and Bangkok support the Chinese Communist government.

"Five and a half handshakes"

The world is small - everyone knows it. But it was Stanley Milgram who had the idea to test this thesis experimentally. Some unremarkable citizen was selected - for example, a stockbroker from Boston. Further, various people across America who did not know this broker were instructed to convey a certain message to another person who could know the wanted person with a greater probability than the initiator of the search. The friend he chose had to repeat the whole procedure, and so on until the message reached the person he was looking for. It turned out that the average chain between two arbitrary people is five and a half intermediaries.

Last update: 08/12/2018

The dangers of obedience is what Stanley Milgram called his experiment. And obedience to authority can be really very dangerous, because sometimes it goes against even universal human values.

“The social psychology of this century shows us the main lesson: often a person’s actions are determined not by his features, but by the situation in which he is located” - Stanley Milgram, 1974

If a person in authority ordered you to deliver a 400 volt electric shock to another person, would you agree to this? Most people will answer this question with a resounding no. But Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experimental obedience studies in the 1960s that produced surprising results.

Background to the Milgram experiment

Milgram began his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of World War II criminal Adolf Eichmann began. “How could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just doing assignments? Were they all accomplices? - such a question was put by Milgram in his report "Obedience to authority".

Milgram Experiment Method

The participants in the experiment were forty men who were recruited through newspaper ads. They were each offered a $4.50 payment.
Milgram designed a very plausible and frightening-looking generator, equipped with 15 V division buttons. The voltage started at 30 V and ended at 450 V. Most of the switches were labeled "light shock", "moderate shock" and "danger: severe shock." The final pair of buttons were labeled simply with the ominous "XXX".

The participants were divided into “teachers” and “students” by a rigged “lot”, during the experiment they were separated by a wall. The "teacher" had to shock the "student" every time he said the wrong answer. While the participant assumed that he actually shocked the "student", no shocks actually occurred, and the "student" was in fact an ally of the experiment feigning shock.

During the experiment, the participant heard the "student's" pleas for mercy, requests to let him out and complaints about a sick heart. As soon as the current level reached 300 volts, the "student" desperately drummed on the wall and demanded release. Then he calmed down and stopped answering questions. The experimenter then ordered the participant to consider this silence as a wrong answer and press the next button for an electric shock.

Most of the participants asked the experimenter if they should continue? But the experimenter gave them a series of commands requiring action:

• "Please continue";
• "The experiment requires you to continue";
• "It's absolutely essential that you continue";
• "You have no other choice, you must continue."

Results of the Milgram experiment

The level of electrical voltage that the participant was willing to deliver was used as a measure of obedience.
How far do you think most of the participants have gone?

When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale students, they assumed that no more than three out of a hundred participants would give the maximum shock. In fact, 65% of participants put the maximum.

Of the 40 participants in the experiment, 26 set the maximum level of electric shock, and only 14 stopped before. It is important to note that many of the subjects became extremely anxious, agitated, and angry with the experimenter. Milgram later clarified that 84% were happy to participate, and only 1% regretted participating in the experiment.

Discussion of the Milgram experiment

While Milgram's study raised serious questions about the ethics of using humans in these kinds of psychological experiments, his findings remained consistent across all subsequent research. Thomas Blass (1999) continued experiments of this kind and found that Milgram's results hold up.

Why did most of the participants perform sadistic acts according to authoritative instructions? According to Milgram, there are many situational factors that can explain this high level of obedience:

• the physical presence of the authority figure dramatically increased compliance;
• the fact that the study was conducted by Yale University, a reputable educational institution, led most of the participants to believe that the experiment should be safe;
• the choice of teacher and student status seemed random;
• participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert;
• participants were assured that the shocks were painful but not dangerous.

Milgram's later experiments indicated that the presence of reluctant participants dramatically increased obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenter's orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to go up to the maximum current level.

“Ordinary people, just doing their job, and without much hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effect of their work becomes apparent, but they are asked to continue actions that are inconsistent with fundamental ethical standards, few people find the strength to resist authority” (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram's experiment became a classic in psychology, demonstrating the dangers of obedience. While this experiment suggested that situational variables had a stronger influence than personality factors in determining obedience, other psychologists argue that obedience is more influenced by a combination of external and internal factors such as personal beliefs and personality traits.

Watch the video of Stanley Milgram's experiment "Obedience.(obedience)"

Got something to say? Leave a comment!.