September 26, 2024<\/p>\n
5 min read<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Milgram\u2019s Infamous Shock Studies Still Hold Lessons for Confronting Authoritarianism<\/p>\n
Why ordinary people will follow orders to the point of hurting others remains a critical question for scientists\u2014though some answers have emerged<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
By Laura Niemi<\/a>, Edouard Machery<\/a> & John M. Doris<\/a><\/p>\n Fifty years ago Stanley Milgram published his book Obedience to Authority<\/i><\/a>, <\/i>which described what have arguably become the most famous experiments in psychology. As the book detailed, an experimenter informed participants\u2014called \u201cteachers\u201d in the study\u2014that they would be administering progressively stronger shocks to people called \u201clearners.\u201d The shocks were not real, but participants thought they were.<\/p>\n The majority of participants proceeded to shock learners despite hearing screams of apparent agony. Under the experimenter\u2019s direction, two thirds of participants in the study\u2019s canonical version continued to the highest voltage level<\/a>, even when the learner complained of heart problems and later stopped screaming, presumably having lost consciousness.<\/p>\n Today Milgram\u2019s \u201cshock experiments\u201d appear in psychology textbooks<\/a>, movies<\/a>, TV shows, blog posts and podcasts. When a point must be made about humans\u2019 vulnerability to pernicious authority figures, Milgram\u2019s findings are there. But this work has never settled comfortably<\/a> with science or the public. It was, and still is, upsetting to know that participants did what they did. People think, \u201cSurely I wouldn\u2019t do that.\u201d Philosophers and scientists are similarly surprised that so many of the supposed teachers \u201cfollowed orders\u201d all the way to the maximum shock voltage.<\/p>\n If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing<\/a>. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.<\/p>\n Researchers have taken a critical lens to Milgram\u2019s work time and again. Well-founded concerns<\/a> about the ethics of putting participants in such distressing circumstances have led to much stricter research standards. Further, <\/b>an important reform movement<\/a> in psychology has prompted reexamination of many classic experiments. One critique suggests that perhaps Milgram misinterpreted his findings: maybe the participants did not actually believe<\/a> \u201clearners\u201d were being shocked.<\/p>\n By reexamining the data from Milgram\u2019s experiments and considering the outcomes of several conceptual replications<\/a> (more recent studies that used different approaches to probe people\u2019s susceptibility to authority figures), we determined that, in fact, Milgram\u2019s work and conclusions still stand. That finding has several important implications, particularly for confronting the knotty question of how people might overcome the tendency to submit to malevolent authority.<\/p>\n First, we should note that Milgram\u2019s experimental paradigm is robustly replicable. Milgram himself closely replicated the findings of the canonical version of his experiment at least three times. In addition, we\u2019ve identified 20 replications<\/a> from around the world with varying degrees of fealty to the original study. One variation involved participants carrying out orders to torment \u201cjob applicants\u201d<\/a> by making negative comments until the applicants failed their qualification exams and lost their chance at employment. Another used a game-show<\/a> scenario in which participants questioned and shocked fellow contestants in front of a studio audience. These efforts show that many people follow the instructions of various kinds of authority figures\u2014even to the point of causing others extreme distress.<\/p>\n But do participants believe these setups are real? When we reanalyzed data from Milgram\u2019s original experiments, we found that the evidence is strongly against the notion that people followed orders because they didn\u2019t believe in the experimental scenario. When the experiment was over, Milgram told participants that the learner was not really being shocked and asked them if they had believed the shocks were real. The participants overwhelmingly affirmed belief in the experimental protocol, Milgram\u2019s data show. Indeed, videos of these experiments (both Milgram\u2019s own and others\u2019<\/a>) are disturbing in part because of the participants\u2019<\/i> acute discomfort, anxiety and stress. Why would they be upset if they knew the shocks were fake? Furthermore, when we look at Milgram\u2019s data, we find that obedient and disobedient participants reported very similar levels of belief in the experiment.<\/p>\n These studies reveal that we are motivated to carry out an authority figure\u2019s requests. The question is whether we can guard against that tendency. In his theory of moral disengagement<\/a>, the late social psychologist Albert Bandura describes blame-shifting as one powerful mechanism that allows people who carry out immoral orders to \u201cdisengage\u201d from their moral compass. For example, by claiming \u201cI was just following orders,\u201d people move culpability onto the person who issued the command, avoiding self-condemnation. Milgram\u2019s experiments provide dramatic evidence of a kind of blame-shifting called victim-blaming. One of his subjects reported<\/a> being \u201cdisgusted\u201d when the learner wouldn\u2019t cooperate, stating, \u201cYou better answer and get it over with. We can\u2019t stay here all night.\u201d<\/p>\n One of us (Niemi) has studied when and why people blame victims<\/a> for their own suffering and has found that the more people express strong support for moral values centered on authority and traditional hierarchies, the more likely they are to agree that victims deserve their misfortune. Fortunately, the findings also suggest that the more that people express support for moral values centered on care and fairness, the more sensitive they are to victims\u2019 suffering. Such values can be consciously cultivated<\/a> and are highly prized by many different communities. These findings apply across different political groups, genders and religious beliefs.<\/p>\n There are also slivers of hope within Milgram\u2019s original experiment and variations. For instance, when participants chose the voltage themselves, very few doled out maximum punishment to the \u201clearners.\u201d Most people\u2014far from being naturally sadistic\u2014were averse to inflicting painful shocks. Strikingly, people overwhelmingly resisted the experimenter\u2019s directions when they were joined by two \u201cdefiant peers\u201d who refused to follow orders. Imagine the power for good each of us could have if we were to join together against authoritarian influence.<\/p>\n When we zoom out to the big picture, we can see that Milgram\u2019s work also points to the seriousness of selecting appropriate leadership\u2014whether in the boardroom or for political office. Ultimately, the people in charge can influence many others to follow their direction. That\u2019s just as important to understand now as it was half a century ago.<\/p>\n The authoritarianism that was the impetus for Milgram\u2019s work remains on the rise worldwide<\/a>, and with it has risen the normalization of violating core democratic values: impartiality, transparency, openness, protection from harm and recusal from conflicts of interest. In response, research programs investigating the slippage of democracy and increases in totalitarian governance are increasing not only in psychology but in adjacent fields such as public policy, political science, sociology and philosophy. It\u2019s therefore critical to correct misinterpretations of Milgram\u2019s work.<\/p>\n Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about for Mind Matters? Please send suggestions to <\/i>Scientific American\u2019s Mind Matters editor Daisy Yuhas at <\/i>dyuhas@sciam.com<\/i><\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of <\/i>Scientific American.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"Illustration](\"https:\/\/static.scientificamerican.com\/dam\/m\/23c9d849450c972d\/original\/puppet_strings_obediance_to_authority.jpg?w=600\")
On supporting science journalism<\/h2>\n