The article, The Perils of Obedience, written by psychologist Stanley Milgram describes his experiment which sought to test how much pain an ordinary person could inflict on another because they have been ordered to do so by someone in authority. It is set around the 1960s, written as a scholarly contribution to Yale University. The article examines obedience in an attempt to define the extent to which obedience can go and the impact that it has on conduct. Milgram holds that obedience is paramount to many; obeying authority counts even where that that goes against one’s conscience.
The experiment features a teacher and a student. The teacher is instructed to punish the student for failing an oral test by administering electric shocks in successively higher degrees. While the student is an actor and the shocks administered are not real, the teacher is the experiment’s subject and is monitored for the willingness and ability to disobey authority (633). The investigation aims to establish whether people can defy authority when the command issued are detrimental to others. 60% of the subjects in the experiment in Yale obeyed the orders to the end while 85% of subjects in other states and countries were obedient. The results are contrary to what the researcher had expected; a bold departure from obeying unreasonable/immoral demands (Milgram, 633). There were variations in the experiment, which yielded different results. An example is the use of force where the percentage of the obedient reduced to 30%. The other variation is where one person was made to read the list of words while the subject administered shocks a good number, 37 out of 40, went all the way (Milgram, 642). Their courage stemmed from their feeling of being less responsible for the torture since someone else was reading the list.
The study concludes that adults have a willingness to go to extreme lengths in their obedience to authority (Milgram, 632). The subsequent interviews of the subjects reveal the thought process and rationale behind their obedience. Many expressed personal convictions against what was being done, but were, however, unable to disobey authority. Milgram also observes that people ignore responsibility when they act as an intermediary and do not deem themselves directly responsible for the actions. The experiment points to the drive to obey regardless of the moral conflict involved; those who had varied results exhibited a stronger sense of personal conviction and fear of repercussions.
Milgram`s experiment rises not only questions regarding its ethical and moral aspects but also about accuracy of the conduction of the experiment. Taking into consideration results and conclusion drawn from testing people`s level of obedience one cannot help but notice loose ends and omission of important details that present this experiment in different light. Thus, psychologist ignored several factors like environment of the experiment and its subjects. First, environment and circumstances of experiment were causing excessive stress that affected subjects` behavior greatly, therefore preventing them from usual and normal reaction to key stimulus. All participants knew that honorable establishment with excellent reputation like Yale University would not conduct ethically incorrect or physically harmful researches. Moreover, the experimenter evoked feeling of trust that fueled level of obedience in subjects, therefore tying their true personality and leaving no room for their normal behavioral pattern. Second, Milgram underestimated subjects of his experiment in terms of their ability to observe and make logical conclusions from their observations. Taking into consideration these two main factors one may see that Milgram`s experiment data was mostly manipulated to the physiologist`s liking.
Moreover, trying to reach his aim in drawing parallels with Holocaust experimentations Milgram ignored factor of subjects` cognitive abilities and observation skills. Thus, teachers subconsciously knew that the experiment was a hoax which can be clearly seen in these lines “another man – a man in a lab coat – whose lack of evident concern suggested there was no danger.” (Parker, 716) Absence of scientist`s emotional reaction indicated inveracity of the situation, therefore implying doubt and stress on teacher which in, its turn, fabricates the research. Also, scientist in a white lab coat drew all authority and responsibility on himself limiting teacher`s power and field of action. This authoritarian conduct chased teacher in corner preventing him from disobeying. For instance, Prozi`s question “You accept all responsibility?” which shows his great anguish and inner conflict that was reduced after experimenter`s reply “The responsibility is mine. Correct. Please go on.” (Milgram, 637) This scientist`s firm answer, absence of emotional concern along with doubtful exclamations of learner`s pain suggest that this experiment is a lie. Moreover, teacher could not ignore all mentioned above which, again, deprives him from his normal behavior and reaction.
It should be mentioned that circumstances along with environment of the experiment only empowers teacher`s feeling of hoax. Taking into consideration place of experiment conduction subjects already drew a certain model of expectations about this test. Being one of the most prestigious establishments in the country Yale University, a priory, cannot conduct immoral and violent experiments. This thought together with the rest aspects of experiment affected teachers behavior greatly causing stress, inner conflict and obedience before an honorable scientist from not less honorable institution.
All things considered, Milgram manipulated experiment results in his favor. His gaps and lose ends in conduction of this experiment prove that people are not that evil creatures, on the contrary, they are prone to obey if they know that the responsibility will be on someone else. However, it should be mentioned that this research made a great contribution into psychology, thus igniting new discoveries and debates about human nature.
Works Cited
Milgram, Stanley. “The Perils of Obedience.” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Ed. Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. 12th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2013. 630-643. Print.
Parker, Ian. “Obedience.” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Ed. Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. 11th ed. Boston: Longman, 2011. 712-721. Print.
