Stanley Milgram:A Character Study in Social Context

By: Abby Moran, 121665440Instructor: Dr. Walsh; TA: Jessica Noble Course: PS 390November 2, 2014

Stanley Milgram: A Short Biography

In 1933, Stanley Milgram was born into a middle-class

Jewish family in the Bronx, New York. That same year, Hitler

came to power. While Milgram was safe from the wave of

Nazism, he had family who were facing anti-Semitism and

fascism in Europe. Milgram’s interest of study was obviously

very shaped by his experience with the Holocaust. In Thomas

Blass’ biography, he includes part of Milgram’s powerful Bar

Mitzvah speech: “The knowledge of the tragic suffering of my

fellow Jews throughout war-torn Europe makes this also a

solemn event and an occasion to reflect upon the heritage of

my people”(Blass, 2004, p. 8).

In the spring of 1954, Milgram applied for Harvard’s

social relations graduate studies program, for he aspired to

conduct his own original research. He was interested in

national characteristics cross-cultural studies (Russell,

2011, p. 3). It must have been around this time that the

seed was planted for Milgram’s obedience studies, as he

scrutinized the value of conformity in German culture.

During his time at Harvard, Milgram was impressed by

the work of Solomon Asch, a psychologist who studied the

group’s effect on the honesty of the answer via the Group

Pressure/Conformity Experiment (Russell, 2011, p. 4). Asch’s

famous experiment involved instructing a group of

participants to answer simple questions evaluating lines.

However, only one of the participants in each group was

really ignorant of the study, and so, the response

tendencies of the naïve-participants were observed under the

effect of various response patterns made by the surrounding

participants. For example, Asch found that when the

surrounding six confederates provided an obvious incorrect

answer, approximately thirty-two percent of the naïve

participants also provided an incorrect answer. By comparing

the line task responses made by the naïve participants in

solitude compared to those made in the group setting, Asch

was able to gather information on group influences on

conformity. By 1956, Milgram found himself under Asch’s wing

as his teaching assistant at Harvard (Russell, 2011, p. 4).

Asch’s educational influence on Milgram is apparent in

his PhD thesis at Harvard, which was based on the same

premises as Asch’s group pressure experiment. Milgram

examined the conforming tendencies observed tone-recognition

responses provided by participants when they are overhearing

others’ deviant responses. The most significant aspect of

Milgram’s study was his added feature of gathering

volunteers of different nationalities (Russell, 2011, p. 5).

He intended to decipher any identifiable tendencies or

differences in the responses that may be culturally

dependent.

Milgram’s thesis earned “glowing reviews, “ and

ultimately resulted in him being offered educational

positions at both Harvard and Yale (Russell, 2011, p. 6).

He accepted Yale’s offer, where he dug his heels into the

obedience studies, with the intention on making the Asch-

based experiments more “humanly significant”(Milgram, The

Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments, 1992,

p. 127). He found this in having the participants engage in

much more extreme and aggressive behavior than observed in

his thesis experiments. In 1960, the Obedience to Authority

(OTA) studies, featuring electric shock administration,

began (Milgram, The Individual in a Social World: Essays and

Experiments, 1992, p. 127). Milgram’s OTA paradigm has

become a part of Western culture; countless undergraduate

programs involve at least some reference to his work. In

Nestar Russell’s background review of the OTA experiments,

he articulately summarizes Milgram’s achievements through

the words of Lee Ross, who suggested that the experiments

have become, “part of our society’s shared intellectual

legacy—that small body of historical incidents, biblical

parables, and classic literature that serious thinkers feel

free to draw upon when they debate about human nature”

(Ross, 1988, as cited in Nicholson, 2011, p. 239).

A Summary of, Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority:

Stanley Milgram’s essay, Some Conditions of Obedience and

Disobedience to Authority (1965), is based on the OTA experiments,

which began in 1960. The essay was published in a book

called, “The Individual in a Social World,” which is a

compilation of Milgram’s essays and experiments. This

particular essay was written after Milgram had completed the

pilot studies of his famous Obedience to Authority

experiments.

Milgram drew inferences from his findings pertaining to

the participant’s psychological processes while they are

required to, “resolve a conflict between two mutually

incompatible demands from the social field” (Milgram, The

Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments, 1992,

p. 138). The teacher may comply with the experimenter’s

demands and shock the learner with escalating severity.

Alternatively, he may defy the authoritative for the sake of

the learner’s wellbeing. I will refer to the “teachers”

interchangeably as the participants, the “learners” as the

victims, and the “authority” as the experimenter.

The participants were under the impression that the

purpose of the study is to observe the effects of punishment

on memory. The learners only posed as naïve participants who

had been randomly assigned their experimental roles; in

actuality, they were acting. That being said, the victims

were not really undergoing forced electric shock, and the

cries of agony were fake or recordings. The teachers quizzed

the learners on simple word association tasks. When the

learners purposely provided incorrect answers, the teachers

were instructed shock the learners with increasing

intensity. As the learner’s perceived agony intensified, the

experimenter’s demands became more coercive.

There are a few more facts about the experiment well

worth mentioning. Firstly, the teachers were made aware of

the severity of the electric shocks that they were

administering. The highest shock level on the generator, at

450 volts, was clearly labeled, “severe shock” (Milgram, The

Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments, 1992,

p. 139). Secondly, the teachers were each given a tester

shock 45 volts at the beginning of the experiment. Thus,

they were aware that they were administering shocks up to

ten times more painful than what they experienced. Thirdly,

the initial victim-out-cry recordings that the teachers

would hear through the walls proved to be inadequate in

eliciting any significant disobedient behavior. The need to

dramatize the victim’s representation of agony indicated, in

Milgram’s words, “that subjects would obey authority to a

greater extend than we had supposed” (Milgram, The

Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments, 1992,

p. 140). So, how is it that 62 percent of the participants,

who were representative of ordinary people, fully obeyed the

experimenters’ orders to the highest shock level (Milgram,

1992, p. 154)? Moreover, why did it take such extreme

measures to induce their refusal to engage in such wicked

behavior?

Milgram was surprised to find that the participants who

reporting feeling the most stress, as measured by their

ranking of tension and nervousness levels experienced before

and after the experiment, also tended to be more willing to

obey. Conversely, those who reported lower stress levels

were associated with higher levels of defiance(Milgram, The

Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments, 1992,

p. 149). Furthermore, Milgram reported common bizarre

behavior patterns seen in the uncomfortable teachers who

completed the experiment, such as inappropriate outbursts of

laughter while administering the aggressive, high voltage

shocks (Milgram, 1992, p. 149). This was interpreted as an

awkwardly backwards expression of discomfort and rigidity.

Such behavior indicated that human nature lacked a competent

model for disobedience (Milgram, 1992, p. 149). Generally,

obedience is perceived to be “good,” while defiance is

“bad”.

The participants’ contradictory behaviors intrigued

Milgram to question why most participants’ actions seemed to

be disconnected with their internal desires. That being

said, Milgram identified the hugely important impact that

the experimenters’ perceived status and expectations had on

the participants’ behaviors(Milgram, The Individual in a

Social World: Essays and Experiments, 1992, p. 151).

Leadership, in many ways, is a function of the

situation(Dimock, 1966, p. 4). In this case, the

authoritative figures are respectable Yale affiliated

scientists, whom the participants likely feel pressured to

please. With this, Milgram infers that the participants are

oriented to comply with the authoritative figure (Milgram,

The Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments,

1992, p. 145).

Moreover, he described the importance of the

authoritative figure’s physical presence in the room in

order to maintain the teacher’s obedience (Milgram, The

Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments, 1992,

p. 147). That being said, Milgram focused on manipulating

two paramount parameters of the experiment: the proximity of

the authoritative figure, and the proximity of the victim,

both in relation to the participant. The latter was examined

under the following four conditions: the Remote condition

required the teacher’s to shock the victim from a different

room, with almost no voice protests. The Voice Feedback

condition also placed the teacher and learner in different

rooms, but increasingly extreme complaints could clearly be

heard through the wall. The Proximity condition again

featured learner’s evident expression of agony, this time

with the teacher and learner placed in the same room.

Lastly, the Touch-Proximity condition was the same as the

third, except that the teacher was required to afflict

direct physical force upon the learner in order to

administer the shock (Milgram, The Individual in a Social

World: Essays and Experiments, 1992, p. 141).

Expressed in terms of the proportion of obedient todefiant subjects, the findings are that 34 percent ofthe subjects defied the experimenter in the Remotecondition, 37.5 percent in Voice Feedback, 60 percentin Proximity, and 70 percent in touch-proximity(Milgram, The Individual in a Social World:Essays and Experiments, 1992, p. 141).

Manipulations made to the closeness to authority revealed

that obedience was three times higher when the experimenter

was in the room giving orders than when he was providing the

teacher with instruction via telephone (Milgram, The

Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments, 1992,

p. 145). This indicated that people tend to be far less

willing to disobey authority when dealing with that

authority in person.

The OTA experiments offered an insight into how humans

deal with an unsettling situation where the disobedient

option is also the virtuous one. “Perhaps our culture does

not provide adequate models for disobedience”(Milgram, The

Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments, 1992,

p. 149). Milgram’s astonishing observations suggested a

seemingly natural human inclination to respond to authority

with obedience. Furthermore, compliance is an aspect of

human nature that comes more naturally and easily than does

individualistic, strong-willed, critical thinking.

The Social Historical Context of the Mid-1960s:

Milgram’s OTA experiments initiated at a time of

uncertainty and tension across North America. People wanted

answers to unsettling questions. Fear and anxiety swept the

US at the end of the 1940s and early 1950s. These feelings

arose from the perceived threat of Soviet infiltration, the

secretive nature of Communists, Russia’s establishment of

nuclear power, and finally, the war in Korea (Moran, 2012,

p. 3). “The Smith Act Trial organized themes of secrecy,

spies, and conspiracy together in order to bolster its

assertion that the Communist party was an illegal scheme

under Soviet control” (Moran, 2012, p. 2). These events, in

combination with the uproar of McCarthyism, sparked the

nation-wide hysteria in the 1950’s known as the Cold War

(Schrecker, 2002). All the while, the world was reeling from

the Nazi regime’s attempted Jewish extermination, and the

horrifying discoveries surrounding the on-goings at WWII

concentration camps that were unveiled post-war. How is it

possible for humans to organize and commit such extreme and

aggressive behavior? In the midst of all the paranoia,

disgust, and confusion, Milgram’s OTA revelations provided

some new understanding of some unsettling aspects of human

nature.

The social context at the time of Stanley Milgram’s

Obedience to Authority experiments is extremely significant

because of how universally relatable his theories were,

while the world seemed to be in turmoil. The OTA experiments

were conducted in 1963, and Obedience and Disobedience to Authority

was published in 1965. Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi lieutenant

colonel, was finally tried for his heinous acts during the

Second World War at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trails in 1960.

Eichmann’s apparent normality was extremely

unsettling(Jetten & Mols, 2014). Eichmann was responsible

for the transporting an immeasurable number of Jews to

concentration camps and, subsequently, to their death

(Maier-Katkin & Stoltzfus, 2013). In Milgram’s Obedience to

Authority: An Experimental View (1974), he references Hannah

Arendt’s well-known and controversial phenomenon known as

“the banality of evil.” This idea was initially documented

in her book entitled Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963) and it

describes how ordinary people engage in group evil. Her

ideas were based around Eichmann’s indifferent claims that

he was simply doing his job. Milgram stated, “Arendt’s

conception of the banality of evil comes closer to the truth

than one might dare to imagine […] ordinary people, simply

doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on

their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive

process” (Milgram, 1974, p. 3).

Milgram’s studies alone do not explain how the

Holocaust occurred. His studies did, however, allow

inferential observation of several aspects of group-

committed atrocities, such as indicators of internal

conflict seen in the teachers. For example, in one

particular participant’s idiosyncratic session, he exhibited

repeated and explicit protest. He angrily expressed his

disagreement with initiating the requested shocks.

Astoundingly, the participant still continues to shock the

learner until he reaches the highest level of 450 volts.

According to Milgram, “He was unable to invent a response

that would free him from [the experimenter’s] authority,”

(Milgram, The Individual in a Social World: Essays and

Experiments, 1992, p. 149). Additionally, Milgram identified

the significance of the conflicting behaviors observed in

several participants who sneakily administered lower shocks

than instructed when the experimenter left the room, for

example (Milgram, The Individual in a Social World: Essays

and Experiments, 1992, p. 147). In both of these examples,

the participant seemed to force himself to comply and

therefore his actions are not in line with his wishes.

Some Nazi’s were undoubtedly anti-Semitic extremists

who meant to eradicate the Jews. However, Milgram ideology

can be used to explain the vast number of Nazi’s, who may

have just been mindlessly following orders involved in a new

political movement towards an Aryan utopia. As the regime

became more powerful, the Nazi sheep were instructed to take

more ruthless and radical action. Milgram emulated such

escalating conditions in the laboratory setting. As the

learner’s pain became more apparent, the experimenter became

increasingly persistent. All the while, the authority

verbally reinforces the teacher for their compliance and

aggressive behavior.

Milgram’s observations regarding the proximity of the

victim to the teacher is considerable in Eichmann’s case.

For 62 percent of the participants, total compliance was an

easy track to fall on. Comparatively, Eichmann worked a desk

job that simply required him to obey orders, and relay

demands. Additionally, he never had to directly face the

agony and suffering he was causing. Conclusively, Milgram

supported Arendt’s banality of evil by showing how ordinary

people, without any preexisting hostilities, became agents

of violence so long as they complied to just “do their job”.

Critical Reflections…

In times of war, aggressive propaganda in combination

with a general acclimatization to violence facilitates the

development of effective torturers. In his 2005 article

titled, The Policy Context of Torture: A Social Psychological Analysis,

Herbert Kelman dug into greater detail about how people come

to commit atrocities by means of obedience to authority.

Torture, according to Kelman, is “a crime of obedience”

(Kelman, 2005, p. 372). Since the obedient participants

believed that they continued to shock the learners against

their will, it was a means of torture.

Kelman identified three main processes that expedite

the formation of torture policy. Firstly, the purpose and

justification of the torture is established (Kelman, 2005,

p. 374). In the setting of the OTA experiment, the purpose,

from the perception of the participant, was to partake in a

scientific study meant to examine the effects of punishment

on memory. Secondly, Kelman asserts that the authority must

recruit agents of torture; and this exemplified via the

small monetary compensation offered to the teachers for

participating in the study (Milgram, 1992, p. 138). Thirdly,

the targets of torture must be clearly defined. In the

context of wartime torture, the “targets” are defined as

national threats, or “enemies of the State” (Kelman, 2005,

p. 375).

Kelman’s third notion is intriguing in regards to the

OTA revelations, as the experimenters did not have to turn

the learners into explicit enemies in order to persuade the

participants into torturing their victims. After all, the

participants believed that their assigned roles (learner or

teacher) were casted at random. However, the circumstances

of the experiment seem to place the teachers on a “team”

with the experimenters, as they communicated throughout the

experiment. In contrast, the learner seemed to be alienated.

Therefore, the illusion of “us-versus-them,” was sufficient

enough to marginalize the “targets of the torture,” in the

context of Milgram’s experiment. This universal process of

forming in-groups and out-groups is seen repeatedly in

situations involving conflict, war, and, most extremely,

genocide. Furthermore, Kelman holds authoritative figures

responsible for formulating policies and creating an

atmosphere in order to “establish a framework within which

officials intermediate levels of hierarchy translate general

policy directives into specific acts of torture,” (Kelman,

2005, p. 373). Milgram’s OTA paradigm is associable with

Kelman’s theory for how people commit torture in numerous

ways. For example, the experimenters exemplified the ease in

which an authoritative figure was able set an atmosphere

where the participants felt immense pressure to conform.

Kelman’s theory represents just one of countless

examples of how the OTA paradigm, along with Milgram’s

brilliant inferences regarding obedience and aggression, are

continuously applicable to world issues. Not only are his

findings universally applicable, but they also provide a

useful understanding of some astounding aspects of human

nature, such as, how ordinary people can engage in group

evil.

According to Jetton and Mols, the world of psychology

has barely scratched the surface when it comes interpreting

Milgram’s archives. They suggest that most views are

ignorant of the richness of the OTA observations, because

most are distracted by the obvious interpretation of the

findings – that humans are very capable of harming others

when positioned to “merely follow orders” (Jetten & Mols,

2014, p. 2).

New information has been accessed through the Milgram

archives at Yale, making his work even more compelling. More

than fifty years after the actual OTA experimentation

occurred, fresh interpretations are still being developed.

Jetton and Mols suggest that psychologists be inspired to

delve deeper into his work in search of answers to more

complex aspects of human nature (Jetten & Mols, 2014, p. 2).

Finally, in my personal opinion, Milgram’s OTA

experiments, and his assertions made in such pieces as,

Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience, provide invaluable

insight. Conclusively, he shocked the world by revealing an

ugly display of human tendency to conform. He offered the

world a way to digest Arendt’s, “banality of evil,” and he

broadened the span of psychology’s understanding of human

nature. And so, fifty years on, “the obedience experiments

continue to inspire and there is still much more than can be

learned from engagement in his work”(Jetten & Mols, 2014, p.

1).

Bibliography

Blass, T. (2004). The Man Who Shocked the World: the Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York, New York, United States: Basic Books.

Dimock, H. (1966). Groups: Leadership and Group Development. San Deigo, California, United States: University Associates Inc..

Jetten, J., & Mols, F. (2014). 50:50 Hindsight: AppreciatingAnew the Contributions of Milgram’s Obedience Experiments. The Journal of Social Issues , 70 (3), 587-602.

Kelman, H. C. (2005). The Policy Context of Torture: A Social Psychological Analysis. In F. Richard, G. Irene, & R.J. Lifton (Eds.), Crimes of War: Iraq. (2006) (Vol. 87, pp. 371-378). New York, New York, United States: Nation Books.

Maier-Katkin, D., & Stoltzfus, N. (2013 йил 10-06). Hannah Arendt On Trial. Retrieved 2014 йил 02-11 from The American Scholar: http://theamericanscholar.org/hannah-arendt-on-trial/#.VFhAiUuRDWE

Milgram, S. (1974). The Dilemma of Obedience. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View , 1-12.

Milgram, S. (1992). The Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments (2nd ed.). (J. Sabini, & M. Silver, Eds.) New York, New York, United States: McGraw-Hill Inc.Moran, A. (2012). The Cold War: A World Wide Paranoia. Wilfrid Laurier University, History, Waterloo.

Nicholson, I. (2011). "Shocking" Masculinity: Shanley Milgram, "Obedience to Authority," and the "Crisis of Manhood" in Cold War America. Isis , 102 (2), 238-268.

Russell, N. J. (2011). Milgram's obedience to authority experiments: Origins and early evolution. British Journal Of Social

Psychology , 140-162.

Schrecker, E. (2002). The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents (2nd ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.