The Milgram Experiment: How the Habit of Obedience Can Lead to Terrible Things

From 1933 to 1945, millions of innocent people were killed on command in gas chambers and death camps. The idea of ​​all this horror could have been born in the head of one person, but for it to come true, much more was needed - the obedience and obedience of those who did it.

In the early 1960s, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram examined the justifications of accused Nazis during the Nuremberg Trials. Their protection is often based in obedience to the orders of superiors.

In 1961, after the trial of SS officer Adolf Eichmann, known as the "architect of the Holocaust", Milgram decided to test whether it could be that millions of Nazis were really "just doing orders." And if other people are not able to be in their place.

In 1963, Milgram held experiment, subsequently included in many psychology textbooks.

Through a newspaper ad, he recruited 40 men aged 20 to 50, paid them $4.50 to participate, and invited them to the lab. To be realistic, people were asked to draw lots to determine the roles of "student" and "teacher" in the experiment.

The first was to memorize the words, the second was to monitor the completion of the task and, in case of errors, turn on the electric current.

In fact, a real participant was always paired with a figurehead who became a "student". After the draw, he was taken to a separate room, where electrodes were attached to his hands.

The “teacher” and the researcher sat down in the next room. There was a generator of electric current, as well as a number of switches with markings from 15 to 450 volts and inscriptions like "Light shock", "High shock", "Danger: severe shock". The last two were simply designated XXX and corresponded to discharges of 425 and 450 volts.

During the Milgram experiment, the participant had to read to the "student" a series of words for memorization. After that, the figurehead allegedly chose the correct answers from four options, and they were displayed on the screen.

For each mistake, the “teacher” had to press a switch to supply current. Moreover, after each subsequent incorrect answer, the intensity of the discharge had to be increased.

Of course, the front man was often wrong, so the participants in the experiment quickly switched to high voltage. When the "teacher" reached 300 volts, the "student" began to knock on the wall of the room. From that moment on, his answers no longer appeared on the screen.

Of course, most of the participants at this point asked the experimenter what to do next. He reported that the lack of an answer can be regarded as a mistake for which punishment is due.

Further, he gave a recommendation to wait 5-10 seconds, and then increase the voltage. After 315 volts, a knock was heard again. Again silence and no response.

If the “teacher” refused to press the lever, the experimenter would say prearranged phrases:

1. Please continue.
2. The experiment requires you to continue.
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4. You have no choice, you must continue.

These proposals were always spoken in order: the first did not work - the second went into action. The experimenter spoke in a dry, neutral tone. Firm, but not harsh. If the person did not continue after the fourth phrase, the experiment was stopped.

As a result, out of 40 participants, only five stopped, having reached the mark of "300 volts", when the "student" began to knock on the wall. After it, another 16 people gradually dropped out.

At the same time, the "teachers" were not at all fun. People were very worried, especially when they reached really strong discharges. They were sweating, trembling, biting their lips, digging their nails into their palms. In 14 out of 40 participants, tension manifested itself in the form of nervous laughter, three had convulsions.

And despite all this, 26 people reached the mark of 450 volts - the one that comes after the marking "Danger: severe shock" and does not even have a name.

65% of the participants punished the “student” with the strongest discharge after he stopped responding.

The people recruited to participate in the Milgram experiment were not sadistic and psychopaths. They were ordinary workers, businessmen or clerks, representatives of the intellectual sphere.

The researchers concluded that anyone can commit any kind of terrible act, if circumstances favor it.

What makes good people obey bad orders

While the conclusions of the Milgram experiment were widely reported in the media, many in the scientific community refused to take them at face value.

They also talked about the wrong sample - only men participated, and about rigged results, and about non-compliance with traditional standards for qualitative research.

Australian psychologist Gina Perry, who wrote a book about the Milgram experiment, named The main flaw of the study is its unrealistic nature. She claimed that the participants simply guessed that the “student” was a dummy, and therefore were not afraid to cause harm and carried out the commands.

At the same time, Polish study, conducted 50 years after the first experiment, showed the same level of compliance in people. At the same time, both men and women participated in it.

In the process of research, scientists have found several relationships between conditions and whether participants will obey orders, despite the suffering of the victim. Here they are.

Lack of responsibility

Milgram's repeated experiments showed that the willingness to continue the punishment depended heavily on who took it upon himself. responsibility for the results.

If the participants asked if the person would be harmed, the experimenter replied that although the shock might be painful, there would be no permanent damage. And asked me to continue.

It appeared that the responsibility of the “teacher” was minimal.

After all, it was the experimenter who assured him that everything was in order. And it was he who asked to continue, despite knocking, no answer and, in some cases, screams pain and complaints from the next room.

When the experimenter said directly that he was taking responsibility for what would happen, continued push the switch, even those who initially refused to do so.

Moreover, if the participants were allowed not to touch the button personally, but to entrust this task to an assistant, the intensity of the current was already brought to the maximum by 92.5% of the subjects. The ability to distance oneself from the action removes some of the responsibility: “I received an order. I didn't push the button."

If the experiment was arranged in such a way that the person felt more personal responsibility for what was happening, the percentage of submission dropped sharply.

For example, when the "student" refused to participate after a 150 volt shock, and the "teacher" was asked to press his hand to the electrode, only 30% of the participants obeyed the instructions. A person could see what submission would lead to, and this had a sobering effect on most of the participants.

Moreover, the percentage of obedience also dropped sharply when people were simply reminded that they were responsible for their actions.

The authority of power

Milgram believed that for thoughtless obedience, it is important to know that the one who gives the orders has the right to do so.

In the experiment, the researcher in command of the participants wore a gray lab coat. He behaved strictly and was confident in his actions.

In this environment, he clearly had the right to tell people what to do and how. And they obeyed.

In the second study, the orders were given not by a scientist in a dressing gown, but by an ordinary person in everyday clothes. And the level of obedience of the participants fell by 20%.

Approximately the same indicators were obtained when the commands were given remotely - by phone from another room. In this case, many participants cheated and passed the shocks or chose a lower voltage than the experimenter required.

The setting also matters. When the experiment was conducted in a typical office rather than the impressive Yale University, only 47.5% of the participants went through with it.

Thus, the legitimacy of power and the removal of responsibility from a person can force him to carry out cruel orders.

At the same time, there are factors that made people resist orders, despite the power and lack of responsibility.

What can make a person rebel against cruelty despite orders

As neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky points out in book "The Biology of Good and Evil", it's much easier to obey cruel orders when the victim is an abstraction.

In the experiment, the "teacher" did not see the "student" - they were in different rooms, and the answers were shown on the screen. Perhaps the participants really did not believe that someone was receiving a shock, and did not have the opportunity to verify this.

But when both participants in the process were in the same room, the degree of obedience was reduced to a minimum. Especially if before the start they shook hands with each other.

When the victim receives individuality, becomes a person, and not some kind of invisible student, neither authority nor lack of responsibility will force you to step over your own humanity.

No worse works and support from other people. In one version of the experiment, in addition to the participant, there were two more dummy "teachers" in the room. One of them stopped at 150 volts, the other at 210 volts.

In this case, only 10% of the participants reached the last category.

How to avoid becoming a victim of thoughtless submission

Of course, the Milgram experiment cannot be taken as evidence that any person will do terrible things if they feel that they will not have to bear responsibility for it. But he makes it clear that our behavior largely depends on the circumstances, and the sum of factors can incline even good people to cruel deeds.

Based on the results of experiments, we can say that, first of all, it is necessary to be aware of your actions and their consequences. And also be able to see behind the abstraction of a person and imagine yourself in his place.

The latter will help you avoid bias and understand what you are going to do and how it relates to your moral principles.