View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

to continue to follow the orders of the researcher affirmed the denial of subjective
choice.
Conversely, Milgram manipulated experimental conditions which decreased support for
the subjects’ self-deception. For instance, Milgram adjusted the proximity of the subject
with the learner – actor on whom the subjects were required to deliver the electric
shock punishment. Milgram found that the closer the subject was to the victim, both
physically and visually, the less likely they were to continue to be obedient and deliver
the punishment up to the maximum potentially injurious 450 volt shock (p. 53). If, as in
one of the experiments, the subject actually had to physically force the victim’s hand
onto a metal plate before administering the shock, 70% of the subjects defied the
experimenter in comparison to 37.5% when the subjects could only hear and not see the
reaction of their victim. It was easier for the subjects to deceive themselves that they
had no direct role in the pain and suffering inflicted in the experiments the further
removed both physically and visually they were from the victim 3 . This in turn led to a
decreased likelihood of them adopting the agentic state to the completion of the
experiment.
These external conditions directly relate to the context of the experiment. Is it also
possible that there may be external influences prior to the experiment which affect the
likelihood of employing bad faith? For example, was the response to the experimental
conditions in part provoked by behaviours objectified via the socialisation process
described by Berger and Luckmann? The socialisation process normalises certain
behaviours which become an objective reality for the individual. Whilst internalisation
of the behaviour is required for the objectification process to be complete, the
convention itself is external to the individual. For instance, the objectification of
obedience to authority through normalisation processes is a method of control
employed by armed services to ensure the compliance of their forces.
I am not suggesting that a person’s socialisation process or the context within which
they make a decision to act absolves them from moral responsibility. But Milgram’s
3 These findings are congruent with the experiments considered in chapter 1 suggesting the link between
compassion and witnessing another’s pain, and Damasio’s work demonstrating the link between
physiological responses, emotions and decision making.
117