Why does a person show blind obedience?These and other questions can be answered through milgram’s experience (1963) or at least that was the intention of this psychologist.
We are facing one of the most famous experiences in the history of psychology and also more transcendental by the revolution that its conclusions provoked in the idea that we became ourselves of the human being up to that point. powerful explanation to understand why good people can sometimes be very cruel. Are you ready to learn more about Milgram’s experience?
- Before we look at obedience.
- Let’s talk about how Milgram’s experience came about.
- First.
- Milgram ran an ad in the newspaper to recruit participants for a psychological study in exchange for a salary.
- When people came to the Yale University lab.
- They were told they would.
- Participate in a learning survey.
In addition, they were explained their role in the study: to formulate by asking another person for a list of words to evaluate their memory.
In fact, this situation was a farce that concealed the true experience, the person thought he was asking questions of another, who was actually an accomplice to the investigator, the person’s mission was to ask the accomplice questions about a list of words he had. previously memorized. If he was right, he would move on to the next word; if he made a mistake, our person should give an electric shock to the investigator’s accomplice (in fact, the discharges did not apply, but the person thought so).
The person was explained that the discharge machine consisted of 30 levels of intensity, provided that the infiltrator’s mistake is made must increase the discharge force of a unit, before the experiment began several small shocks had already been applied to the accomplice, whom he was already simulating as a problem.
At the beginning of the experiment, the accomplice will answer the person’s questions correctly and without any problem, but as the experiment progresses, it begins to fail and the subject must apply the downloads. The role of the accomplice was as follows: when level 10 of intensity arrived, he had to start complaining about the experience and want to leave, at level 15 of the experience he refused to answer questions and showed his opposition with determination, when he reached level 20 intensity he pretended to faint and therefore not be able to answer questions.
At all times, the investigator asks the person to continue the test; even though the accomplice is supposed to faint, considering the lack of response as a mistake, so that the person does not fall into the temptation to abandon the experiment, the researcher reminds him that he is committed to reaching the end and that the Total Responsibility for What Happens lies with the researcher.
Now I ask you a question, how many people do you think you have reached the last level of intensity (a level of discharge at which many people would die)?And how many have reached the level at which the accomplice passed out?Well, let’s look at the results of these “obedient criminals. “
Before conducting the experiments, Milgram asked some fellow psychiatrists to predict the results. Psychiatrists thought that most people would drop out of school in the face of the accomplice’s first complaint, about 4% would reach the level at which they simulate fainting, and that only one pathological case, one in a thousand, would peak (Milgram 1974).
This prediction was completely incorrect, experiments showed unexpected results. Of the 40 people in the first experiment, 25 ended. By contrast, about 90% of participants reached at least the level at which the accomplice fainted (Milgram, 1974). Participants obeyed the researcher in everything; although some of them had high levels of stress and rejection, they continued to obey.
Milgram was informed that the sample could be sesathed, but this study was widely replicated with different samples and plans that we can see in Milgram’s book (2016) and all offered similar results. Even a researcher in Munich found results that 85% of people achieved. the maximum level of releases (Milgram, 2005).
Shanab (1978) and Smith (1998) show us in their studies that the results are generalized to any country of Western culture; However, we must be careful when we think we are facing universal social behavior: transcultural research does not. show no conclusive results.
The first question we ask ourselves after seeing these results is: why do people obey these levels?In Milgram (2016), there are several transcripts of individuals’ conversations with the researcher, in which we note that most of them felt bad about their behavior, so cruelty cannot be what drives them. It may be that the answer is in the “authority” of the investigator, in whom individuals really delees responsibility for what happens.
Thanks to variations in Milgram’s experience, a number of factors were extracted that affected obedience:
These factors alone do not cause one person to blindly obey another, but the sum of these creates a situation in which obedience is highly likely, whatever the consequences. ) I was talking If we don’t know the strength of our context, it can make us behave outside of our principles.
People are blindly obeyed because the pressure of the above factors exceeds the pressure that personal conscience can exert to get out of this situation, which helps us explain many historical facts, such as the great support for the fascist dictatorships of the last century or more concrete. such as the behavior and explanations of doctors who helped exterminate Jews during World War II at Nuremberg trials.
Whenever we see behaviors that exceed our expectations it is interesting to wonder what provokes them, psychology gives us a very interesting explanation of obedience, assumes that the decision made by a competent authority with the intention of favoring the group has more adaptive consequences for group than if the decision had been the result of a full group discussion.
Imagine a society under the command of an authority that is not challenged by a society in which an authority is judged, having no control mechanisms, logically the first will be much faster than the second in executing decisions: a variable very important that can determine victory. or defeat in a conflict situation. This is also closely related to Tajfel’s (1974) theory of social identity.
Now, what can we do with blind obedience? Authority and hierarchy may be adaptable in some contexts, but this does not legitimize blind obedience to immoral authority Here we face a problem: if we achieve a society in which an authority is challenged, we will have a healthy and just community, but which will fall to other societies with which to conflict with its slow decision-making.
At the individual level, if we want to avoid falling into blind obedience, it is important to note that each of us can fall under the pressures of the situation, so the best defense before us is how contextual factors affect us; then, when we are overcome, we can try to regain control and not delegate, whatever the temptation, a responsibility that corresponds to us.
Experiences like this help us a lot to think about the human being, they allow us to see that dogmas such as what a human being is good or bad are far from explaining our reality, it is necessary to clarify the complexity of human behavior. to understand their reasons. Knowledge will help us understand our history and not repeat certain actions.
References
Milgram, S. (1963). Study of the Behavior of Obedience, Journal of Social and Abnormal Psychology, 67, 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental Vision, New York: Harper and Row
Milgram, S. (2005). The dangers of obedience. POLIS, Latin American Magazine.
Milgram, S. , Goitia, J. de and Bruner, J. (2016) . Obedience to Authority: The Experience of Milgram. Captain Swing.
Shanab, M. E. et Yahya, K. A. (1978). A multicultural study of obedience. Psiconic Society Bulletin.
Smith, P. B. et Bond, Mr. H. (1998). Social Psychology in All Cultures (2nd Edition) . Prentice Hall.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior, Social Science Information, 13, 65-93.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). The Lucifer effect: the reason for evil.