Hockenbury Discovering Psychology 5th txtbk

Obedience481Experimental VariationsOriginal studyExperiment conducted inoffice building instead ofuniversity settingTeacher and learner insame roomTeacher required to forcelearner‘s hand down ona “shock plate”Experimenter leaves laboratoryand gives ordersover the phone23%30%40%48%65%Figure 11.4 Factors That DecreaseDestructive Obedience By systematicallyvarying his basic experimental design, Milgramidentified several factors that diminishthe likelihood of destructive obedience.In this graph, you can see the percentageof subjects who administered the maximumshock in different experimental variations.For example, when Milgram’s subjectsobserved what they thought weretwo other subjects disobeying the experimenter,the real subjects followed theirlead 90 percent of the time and refused tocontinue.Source: Adapted from data reported in Milgram (1974a).Experimenter leaves andordinary man givesorders to continue20%Teacher observes twoother teachers rebel andrefuse to continue10%Teacher free to chooseshock level3%0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Percentage of subjects administeringthe maximum shock (450 volts)If Milgram’s findings seem to cast an unfavorable light on human nature, there aretwo reasons to take heart. First, when teachers were allowed to act as their own authorityand freely choose the shock level, 95 percent of them did not venture beyond150 volts—the first point at which the learner protested. Clearly, Milgram’s subjectswere not responding to their own aggressive or sadistic impulses, but rather to ordersfrom an authority figure (see Reeder & others, 2008).Second, Milgram found that people were more likely to muster up the courageto defy an authority when they saw others do so. When Milgram’s subjects observedwhat they thought were two other subjects disobeying the experimenter, the realsubjects followed their lead 90 percent of the time and refused to continue. Like thesubjects in Asch’s experiment, Milgram’s subjects were more likely to stand by theirconvictions when they were not alone in expressing them.Despite these encouraging notes, the overall results of Milgram’s obedienceresearch painted a bleak picture of human nature. And, more than 40 years after thepublication of Milgram’s research, the moral issues that his findings highlighted arestill with us. Should military personnel be prosecuted for obeying orders to commitan immoral or illegal act? Who should be held responsible? We discuss a contemporaryinstance of destructive obedience in the Critical Thinking box, “Abuse at AbuGhraib: Why Do Ordinary People Commit Evil Acts?” on the next page.Asch, Milgram, and the Real WorldImplications of the Classic Social Influence StudiesThe scientific study of conformity and obedience has produced some importantinsights. The first is the degree to which our behavior is influenced by situationalfactors (see Zimbardo, 2007). Being at odds with the majority or with authorityfigures is very uncomfortable for most people—enough so that our judgment andperceptions can be distorted and we may act in ways that violate our conscience.