Hockenbury Discovering Psychology 5th txtbk

480 CHAPTER 11 Social PsychologyThe Aftereffects of Milgram’s Study: WereSubjects Harmed? Milgram’s findings weredisturbing. But some psychologists foundhis methods equally upsetting. For example,in one experimental variation, participantswere ordered to physically hold thelearner’s hand on a “shock plate.” Thirtypercent obeyed. To psychologist DianaBaumrind (1964), it was unethical forMilgram to subject his participants to thatlevel of emotional stress, humiliation, andloss of dignity. But Milgram (1964) counteredthat he had not set out to createstress in his subjects. It was his unanticipatedresults, not his methods, that disturbedpeople. Who would object to hisexperiment, he asked, “if everyone hadbroken off at ‘slight shock’ or at thefirst sign of the learner’s discomfort?”Concerns were also expressed that participantswould experience serious aftereffectsfrom the experiment. However, ina follow-up questionnaire, 84 percent ofparticipants in Milgram’s experiment indicatedthat they were “glad to have takenpart in the experiment,” and only about1 percent regretted participating(Milgram, 1974b).The individual who is commanded by alegitimate authority ordinarily obeys.Obedience comes easily and often. It isa ubiquitous and indispensable featureof social life.—STANLEY MILGRAM (1963)arrival, which may have increased their senseof having made a commitment to cooperatewith the experimenter.• The situation, or context, in which theobedience occurred.The subjects werefamiliar with the basic nature of scientific investigation,believed that scientific researchwas worthwhile, and were told that the goalof the experiment was to “advance the scientificunderstanding of learning and memory”(Milgram, 1974a). All these factorspredisposed the subjects to trust and respectthe experimenter’s authority (Darley, 1992).Even when subjects protested, they were politeand respectful. Milgram suggested thatsubjects were afraid that defying the experimenter’s orders would make themappear arrogant, rude, disrespectful, or uncooperative.• The gradual, repetitive escalation of the task. At the beginning of the experiment,the subject administered a very low level of shock—15 volts. Subjectscould easily justify using such low levels of electric shock in the service of science.The shocks, like the learner’s protests, escalated only gradually. Each additionalshock was only 15 volts stronger than the preceding one.• The experimenter’s behavior and reassurances. Many subjects asked the experimenterwho was responsible for what might happen to the learner. In every case,the teacher was reassured that the experimenter was responsible for the learner’swell-being. Thus, the subjects could believe that they were not responsible forthe consequences of their actions. They could tell themselves that their behaviormust be appropriate if the experimenter approved of it.• The physical and psychological separation from the learner. Several “buffers”distanced the subject from the pain that he was inflicting on the learner. First,the learner was in a separate room and not visible. Only his voice could beheard. Second, punishment was depersonalized: The subject simply pushed aswitch on the shock generator. Finally, the learner never appealed directly to theteacher to stop shocking him. The learner’s pleas were always directed towardthe experimenter, as in “Experimenter! Get me out of here!” Undoubtedly, thiscontributed to the subject’s sense that the experimenter, rather than the subject,was ultimately in control of the situation, including the teacher’s behavior. Similarly,when teachers were told to personally hold the learner’s hand down on a“shock plate,” obedience dropped to 30 percent. Overall, Milgram demonstratedthat the rate of obedience rose or fell depending upon the situationalvariables the subjects experienced (Zimbardo, 2007).Conditions That Undermine ObedienceVariations on a ThemeIn a lengthy series of experiments, Milgram systematically varied the basic obedienceparadigm. To give you some sense of the enormity of Milgram’s undertaking,approximately 1,000 subjects, each tested individually, experienced some variation ofMilgram’s obedience experiment. Thus, Milgram’s obedience research represents oneof the largest and most integrated research programs in social psychology (Blass, 2000).By varying his experiments, Milgram identified several conditions that decreasedthe likelihood of destructive obedience, which are summarized in Figure 11.4. Forexample, willingness to obey diminished sharply when the buffers that separated theteacher from the learner were lessened or removed, such as when both of them wereput in the same room.