The reconstruction of Milgram's electrical market experiments led to a new interpretation
In 2010, I worked on a special episode of the NBC television series Dateline that dealt with recreating famous psychological experiments. Among other things, we reproduced the famous series of Stanley Milgram's electric market experiments from the 60s. We strictly followed Milgram's protocols: subjects read a series of word pairs to a "learner" (an actor named Tyler), then presented the first word in each pair again. Every time Tyler made a mistake in matching the word, an authority figure (an actor named Jeremy) demanded that the subjects activate an electric shock, using a switch box. Each switch was marked with an electric voltage in values that went up in 20 volt increments until they reached a voltage of 15 volts (in practice, no electric voltage was applied at all). In Milgram's original experiments, 450% of the subjects reached the last switch. We only had two days to film this part of the program (and you are welcome to watch all our experiments at: http://tinyurl.com/65yg3v2), so we were not able to film more than six subjects, who thought they were auditioning for a new reality show called "What a pain!" .
Credit: Mario Wagner
Milgram concluded that we humans blindly obey authority to the point where we commit bad acts because we are strongly influenced by environmental conditions. Contrary to this conclusion, I observed that our subjects expressed behavioral reluctance and moral disapproval at each stage. Our first subject, Emily, quit as soon as she received the instructions. "It's not really my thing," she said with a nervous giggle. When our second subject, Julie, reached 75 volts and heard Taylor moaning, she protested: "I don't think I want to keep doing this." Jeremy insisted: "You really have no choice, you have to continue until the end." Despite the authoritative orders given by our actor in a stone-cold voice, Julie continued to cling to her moral principles: "No, I'm sorry. I just see where it's going and I just… I don't… I think I'm done. I think I'm ready to retire."
When the host of the show, Chris Hansen, asked her what was going through her mind in those moments, Julie explained her resistance to authority with this moral insight: "I didn't want to hurt Tyler. And then I just wanted out. And I'm mad at myself for even getting to five [wrong answers]. I'm sorry, Tyler.”
Our third subject, Latifa, seemed nervous when she reached 120 volts and moved uncomfortably up to 180 volts. When Taylor screamed, “Oh! Ah! Get me out of here! I refuse to continue! Get me out!" Tipa turned to Jeremy with this moral plea: "I know I don't feel the pain, but I hear him screaming and asking to get out, and it's almost like an instinct and a gut feeling for me to stop, because you're hurting someone and you don't even know why you're hurting them, except for the fact that For a TV show." Jeremy coldly ordered her to "go on please." When it reached a range above 300 volts it was obvious to the eye that it was destabilizing, so Hansen intervened and stopped the experiment. He asked Latifa "What was it about Jeremy that convinced you to continue?" Latifa allowed us to peek into the psychology of obedience and said: "I didn't know what might happen to me if I stopped. He just… had no emotion. I was afraid of him."
Our fourth subject, a man named Aranit, without hesitation completed the first series of switches and stopped at 180 volts to apologize to Taylor: "I'm going to hurt you, and I'm really sorry." Then he encouraged him: "Come on, you can do it... we're almost done." After completing the experiment, Hansen asked him: "Did it bother you to give him an electric shock?" Aranit admitted: "Yes, of course. It really bothered me. And especially when he no longer answered." When Aranit was asked what was going through his mind, he attributed his behavior to the authority figure, expressing the psychological principle of blurring responsibility: "Jeremy stood over me and told me to continue. It was like, 'Okay, it'll be fine'... Let's just say I left all the weight of responsibility on him, and not on me."
Human moral nature includes a tendency to empathize and be nice and kind to members of our tribe and to members of our group, along with a tendency to xenophobia, cruelty, and evil toward members of other tribes. The electric market experiments do not reveal blind obedience but conflicting moral tendencies that lie deep within us.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
About the author
Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com His latest book is The Believing Mind. Follow him on Twitter: @michaelshermer
7 תגובות
Shermer is great, but here he overlapped. The original experiment involved dozens of people, not six, and had several variations. In the most extreme variation, the examiner was dressed in a white coat, posed as a scientist at the university, claimed that it was a scientific study and assumed all responsibility. In doing so, he gave the experiment the appearance of authority, objectivity and scientificity, and relieved the guinea pig of responsibility. Shermer only reinforced the results of the milder variation of the experiment, in which about three quarters of the people who were required to electrocute the victim simply stopped cooperating, when the experiment was without the scientific and academic authority of a prestigious university, and the experimenter was without a white coat.
The caption below the photo mentions the Stanford Prison Experiment which is related in a way but it's not that one.
In my opinion there is a huge mental difference between the people of the 60's and "modern" people.
My feeling is that it was easier to have an authoritative influence on people in the 40's, 50's and 60's before the appearance of visual media, i.e. television.
I still have the strong impression of the radio announcers from the 60s (example: Moshe Hovav) whose deep voice heralded wars or other important events, and distinguish the feeling of "relief" when Chaim Yavin appeared on the stage.
It is easier for people with low environmental consciousness to obey authoritative voices coming from "above"
As soon as the speaking figure is revealed, the magic disappears.
A nice example, at the time of receiving the Torah it was said "And all the people see the voices..." I would like to see how Moshe Rabbino's technique will work on the television generation...
The experiment could have been more comprehensive if people from more traditional sectors such as religious people, who from the day they were born were brought up to blind obedience to divine authority, or any of its representatives on earth, were also tested.
And finally, it is clearly seen (from the small sample..) that women have greater "moral power" than men.
Has a survey work of the IDF's behavior department been published that examines the various roadblocks as a "Milgrom experiment" in the field? And does their wholesale removal when the Palestinians are "okay" prove that even without giving approval to the conclusions, our commanders are actually acting in accordance with the moral concept on the one hand and on the assumption that the soldiers will indeed obey authority even if it is not completely moral on the other hand.
From the wonders of Google's advertising engine. He finds suitable keywords for the topic of the article. Whether they are relevant or not is another question.
What is impressive here is that precisely on this site of skepticism, under Michael Shermer's article, ads for natural treatments appear...
Natural treatment against candida (harmless), and natural treatment against Helicobacter pylori (which is known to respond to a natural treatment called antibiotics...)
I don't think this is considered a reasonable experiment because a total of 6 people were tested, 6 people do not seem to me to represent the entire population.