The-Milgram-Obedience(Milgram服从实验)

1TheMilgramObedienceExperimentThePerilsofObedienceByKendraCherry,About.comGuideThesocialpsychologyofthiscenturyrevealsamajorlesson:oftenitisnotsomuchthekindofpersonamanisasthekindofsituationinwhichhefindshimselfthatdetermineshowhewillact.–StanleyMilgram,1974Ifapersoninapositionofauthorityorderedyoutodelivera400-voltelectricalshocktoanotherperson,wouldyoufolloworders?Mostpeoplewouldanswerthisquestionwithanadamantno,butYaleUniversitypsychologistStanleyMilgramconductedaseriesofobedienceexperimentsduringthe1960sthatdemonstratedsurprisingresults.Theseexperimentsofferapowerfulanddisturbinglookintothepowerofauthorityandobedience.IntroductiontotheMilgramExperimentMilgramstartedhisexperimentsin1961,shortlyafterthetrialoftheWorldWarIIcriminalAdolphEichmannhadbegun.Eichmann’sdefensethathewassimplyfollowinginstructionswhenheorderedthedeathsofmillionsofJewsrousedMilgram’sinterest.Inhis1974bookObediencetoAuthority,Milgramposedthequestion,CoulditbethatEichmannandhismillionaccomplicesintheHolocaustwerejustfollowingorders?Couldwecallthemallaccomplices?MethodUsedintheMilgramExperimentTheparticipantsintheMilgramexperimentwere40menrecruitedusingnewspaperads.Inexchangefortheirparticipation,eachpersonwaspaid$4.50.Milgramdevelopedanintimidatingshockgenerator,withshocklevelsstartingat30voltsandincreasingin15-voltincrementsallthewayupto450volts.Themanyswitcheswerelabeledwithtermsincludingslightshock,moderateshockanddanger:severeshock.ThefinaltwoswitcheswerelabeledsimplywithanominousXXX.Eachparticipanttooktheroleofateacherwhowouldthendeliverashocktothestudenteverytimeanincorrectanswerwasproduced.Whiletheparticipantbelievedthathewasdeliveringrealshockstothestudent,thestudentwasactuallyaconfederateintheexperimentwhowassimplypretendingtobeshocked.2Astheexperimentprogressed,theparticipantwouldhearthelearnerpleadtobereleasedorevencomplainaboutaheartcondition.Oncethe300-voltlevelhadbeenreached,thelearnerbangedonthewallanddemandedtobereleased.Beyondthispoint,thelearnerbecamecompletelysilentandrefusedtoansweranymorequestions.Theexperimentertheninstructedtheparticipanttotreatthissilenceasanincorrectresponseanddeliverafurthershock.Mostparticipantsaskedtheexperimenterwhethertheyshouldcontinue.Theexperimenterissuedaseriesofcommandstoprodtheparticipantalong:1.Pleasecontinue.2.Theexperimentrequiresthatyoucontinue.3.Itisabsolutelyessentialthatyoucontinue.4.Youhavenootherchoice,youmustgoon.ResultsoftheMilgramExperimentThelevelofshockthattheparticipantwaswillingtodeliverwasusedasthemeasureofobedience.Howfardoyouthinkthatmostparticipantswerewillingtogo?WhenMilgramposedthisquestiontoagroupofYaleUniversitystudents,itwaspredictedthatnomorethan3outof100participantswoulddeliverthemaximumshock.Inreality,65%oftheparticipantsinMilgram’sstudydeliveredthemaximumshocks.Ofthe40participantsinthestudy,26deliveredthemaximumshockswhile14stoppedbeforereachingthehighestlevels.Itisimportanttonotethatmanyofthesubjectsbecameextremelyagitated,distraughtandangryattheexperimenter.Yettheycontinuedtofollowordersallthewaytotheend.Becauseofconcernsabouttheamountofanxietyexperiencedbymanyoftheparticipants,allsubjectsweredebriefedattheendoftheexperimenttoexplaintheproceduresandtheuseofdeception.However,manycriticsofthestudyhavearguedthatmanyoftheparticipantswerestillconfusedabouttheexactnatureoftheexperiment.Milgramlatersurveyedtheparticipantsandfoundthat84%weregladtohaveparticipated,whileonly1%regrettedtheirinvolvement.DiscussionoftheMilgramExperimentWhileMilgram’sresearchraisedseriousethicalquestionsabouttheuseofhumansubjectsinpsychologyexperiments,hisresultshavealsobeenconsistentlyreplicatedinfurtherexperiments.ThomasBlass(1999)reviewedfurtherresearchonobedienceandfoundthatMilgram’sfindingsholdtrueinotherexperiments.3Whydidsomanyoftheparticipantsinthisexperimentperformaseeminglysadisticactontheinstructionofanauthorityfigure?AccordingtoMilgram,thereareanumberofsituationalfactorsthatcanexplainsuchhighlevelsofobedience:Thephysicalpresenceofanauthorityfiguredramaticallyincreasedcompliance.ThefactthatthestudywassponsoredbyYale(atrustedandauthoritativeacademicinstitution)ledmanyparticipantstobelievethattheexperimentmustbesafe.Theselectionofteacherandlearnerstatusseemedrandom.Participantsassumedthattheexperimenterwasacompetentexpert.Theshocksweresaidtobepainful,notdangerous.LaterexperimentsconductedbyMilgramindicatedthatthepresenceofrebelliouspeersdramaticallyreducedobediencelevels.Whenotherpeoplerefusedtogoalongwiththeexperimentersorders,36outof40participantsrefusedtodeliverthemaximumshocks.Ordinarypeople,simplydoingtheirjobs,andwithoutanyparticularhostilityontheirpart,canbecomeagentsinaterribledestructiveprocess.Moreover,evenwhenthedestructiveeffectsoftheirworkbecomepatentlyclear,andtheyareaskedtocarryoutactionsincompatiblewithfundamentalstandardsofmorality,relativelyfewpeoplehavetheresourcesneededtoresistauthority(Milgram,1974).Milgram’sexperimenthasbecomeaclassicinpsychology,demonstratingthedangersofobedience.Whilethisexperimentsuggeststhatsituationalvariableshaveastrongersw