Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 3:03pm
Are We All Potential Monsters?
Column: Spiritual Psychology
NEWS: I have recently joined Armand DiMele on his popular radio show, The Positive Mind on WBAI, 99.5 FM, as an associate producer and co-host on Wednesdays, 1-2 PM (WBAI is part of the Pacifica Radio Network). The Positive Mind is recognized as one of the most important media programs that focuses on understanding human behavior. Broadcast Live (Tuesday –Thursday) and through the internet, it reaches millions of listeners in every corner of the globe. Armand DiMele has been praised for his compassion and remarkable ability to walk in the listener's shoes. He artfully bridges the communication gap between professionals and the people they serve.
— — —
Column:
Would you torture or inflict pain on another person if an authority figure ordered you to? Your answer is probably a resounding” No.” Yet psychologist Stanley Milgram’s landmark research, as well as numerous follow-up studies, say that most of us would.
Milgram’s 1961 riveting experiment at Yale University showing that ordinary individuals will obediently submit to the command of an authority figure to inflict pain on others continues to reverberate today. His work, sometimes called “the Eichmann effect,” reached the shocking conclusion that almost anyone under certain circumstances will follow orders and commit heinous acts like the atrocities in Nazi Germany. The experiment implied that a holocaust could happen anywhere, even in the United States.
A recent replication of Milgram’s research by Santa Clara University psychologist Jerry Burger described in the January 2009 issue of the American Psychologist again supports Milgram’s findings, although the research design had to be modified due to more stringent ethical guidelines for human research established by the American Psychological Association. Citing Milgram’s experiment and Burger’s latest confirmation of his findings, an editorial in the New York Times (Dec. 29, 2008)) pointed to current examples of the obedience to authority factor in incidents reported at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
Milgram’s conclusion is so unsettling that a nagging question refuses to go away: Can it be true? Are we all prone to becoming monsters willing to carry out atrocious acts merely because an authority figure tells us to do so? Or is there a flaw in Milgram’s work?
On the face of it his study seems simple and straightforward enough. And he was considered a meticulous researcher. In fact I got to know Milgram when he participated in a psychology workshop that I gave in Athens Greece in 1979. He struck me as a deep and serious thinker of great integrity.
In his initial experiment, Milgram recruited forty ordinary citizens of New Haven Connecticut for a study of memory and learning. The recruited subjects were the “teachers.” They were required to administer increasing levels of electric shock (fake)— from 15-450 volts in 15 volt increments— to “the learners” (actually actors) every time the learner gave an incorrect answer. The “learners” were behind a wall in another room. They could not be seen by the “teachers” but their reactions and pleas could be heard. When “teachers” were inclined to stop, the experimenter prodded them to continue. The teachers often appeared worried and uncomfortable ; many asked , “Who is responsible for the harmful effects?” After they were assured that the experimenter was responsible, most continued to obey orders to increase what they believed to be greater levels of painful shock.
An astonishing 65% percent of the “teachers” were willing to increase the voltage to the maximum of 450 volts—and no one stopped before 300 volts. Burger found a comparable percentage of compliance, although ethical considerations restricted his research to a 140 volt maximum; and two of Milgram’s more authoritarian prodding commands to continue could not be used. (“It is absolutely essential that you continue” and “You have no other choice, you must go on”)
As a psychologist, I have always been bothered by Stanley Milgram’s conclusion that we are all capable of blindly submitting to authority. Particularly disturbing in Milgram’s experiment was that the “authority” was a lab technician. What kind of authority is that? The experimenter giving the orders was not a powerful or threatening figure by any reasonable definition—surely nothing comparable to an SS officer or CIA agent.
In Nazi Germany some ordinary citizens were willing participants in torture and murder, others were blindly obedient to oppressive authority and still others were fearful that if they didn’t participate they and their families would be punished despite assurances to the contrary. But these compelling factors for obedience or submission were not present in Milgram’s experiment. If Milgram’s subjects bowed to the measly “authority” of a lab technician on a college campus wouldn’t that imply even greater depravity than for those who capitulate to genuine powerful authorities? That is a difficult and painful conclusion.
Still, though, I could not put my finger on what was wrong with Milgram’s research. After all, his subjects followed orders and were willing to inflict pain. And the recent replication, as well as numerous previous ones, said the same. But then it struck me.
Replication of the experiment is not enough. What is needed is replication and then follow-up with the same subjects (although that would pose difficult research challenges). While many of the participants in their brief face off with authority and obedience may have appeared to be following orders blindly, their initial responses are not the litmus test. If it were true obedience, as in the Nazi Germany analogy, it should stand up in a repetition with the same subjects. In other words, after reflection would those who capitulated to “authority” do it again? I think it’s likely that many would not. Milgram noted that most of his subjects had high stress levels following the experiment.
In Nazi Germany obedience was not a one- shot deal of participating in cruelty for an hour, being debriefed and then going home to a normal life.
Simply replicating Milgram’s research design does not tell us if the obedience that was demonstrated is a fixed part of our makeup, even if dormant most of the time. On the other hand, all of us may not be monsters poised for the right circumstances to unleash the devil within. When conscience and consciousness kick in they might very well trump the “Eichmann effect.”
The implications of Milgram’s experiment are too far reaching to be left standing without more thorough investigation.
— — —
(My latest book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is published by Rowman and Littlefield (Oct. 2007) and is now available at Amazon.com,Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches “Spirituality and Psychology in Film” at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio (“The Longevity Report”), he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major newspapers and other publications. He is also the President of the Association for Spirituality and Psychotherapy and is the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. © Copyright 2008 by Bernard Starr
— — —
Column:
Would you torture or inflict pain on another person if an authority figure ordered you to? Your answer is probably a resounding” No.” Yet psychologist Stanley Milgram’s landmark research, as well as numerous follow-up studies, say that most of us would.
Milgram’s 1961 riveting experiment at Yale University showing that ordinary individuals will obediently submit to the command of an authority figure to inflict pain on others continues to reverberate today. His work, sometimes called “the Eichmann effect,” reached the shocking conclusion that almost anyone under certain circumstances will follow orders and commit heinous acts like the atrocities in Nazi Germany. The experiment implied that a holocaust could happen anywhere, even in the United States.
A recent replication of Milgram’s research by Santa Clara University psychologist Jerry Burger described in the January 2009 issue of the American Psychologist again supports Milgram’s findings, although the research design had to be modified due to more stringent ethical guidelines for human research established by the American Psychological Association. Citing Milgram’s experiment and Burger’s latest confirmation of his findings, an editorial in the New York Times (Dec. 29, 2008)) pointed to current examples of the obedience to authority factor in incidents reported at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
Milgram’s conclusion is so unsettling that a nagging question refuses to go away: Can it be true? Are we all prone to becoming monsters willing to carry out atrocious acts merely because an authority figure tells us to do so? Or is there a flaw in Milgram’s work?
On the face of it his study seems simple and straightforward enough. And he was considered a meticulous researcher. In fact I got to know Milgram when he participated in a psychology workshop that I gave in Athens Greece in 1979. He struck me as a deep and serious thinker of great integrity.
In his initial experiment, Milgram recruited forty ordinary citizens of New Haven Connecticut for a study of memory and learning. The recruited subjects were the “teachers.” They were required to administer increasing levels of electric shock (fake)— from 15-450 volts in 15 volt increments— to “the learners” (actually actors) every time the learner gave an incorrect answer. The “learners” were behind a wall in another room. They could not be seen by the “teachers” but their reactions and pleas could be heard. When “teachers” were inclined to stop, the experimenter prodded them to continue. The teachers often appeared worried and uncomfortable ; many asked , “Who is responsible for the harmful effects?” After they were assured that the experimenter was responsible, most continued to obey orders to increase what they believed to be greater levels of painful shock.
An astonishing 65% percent of the “teachers” were willing to increase the voltage to the maximum of 450 volts—and no one stopped before 300 volts. Burger found a comparable percentage of compliance, although ethical considerations restricted his research to a 140 volt maximum; and two of Milgram’s more authoritarian prodding commands to continue could not be used. (“It is absolutely essential that you continue” and “You have no other choice, you must go on”)
As a psychologist, I have always been bothered by Stanley Milgram’s conclusion that we are all capable of blindly submitting to authority. Particularly disturbing in Milgram’s experiment was that the “authority” was a lab technician. What kind of authority is that? The experimenter giving the orders was not a powerful or threatening figure by any reasonable definition—surely nothing comparable to an SS officer or CIA agent.
In Nazi Germany some ordinary citizens were willing participants in torture and murder, others were blindly obedient to oppressive authority and still others were fearful that if they didn’t participate they and their families would be punished despite assurances to the contrary. But these compelling factors for obedience or submission were not present in Milgram’s experiment. If Milgram’s subjects bowed to the measly “authority” of a lab technician on a college campus wouldn’t that imply even greater depravity than for those who capitulate to genuine powerful authorities? That is a difficult and painful conclusion.
Still, though, I could not put my finger on what was wrong with Milgram’s research. After all, his subjects followed orders and were willing to inflict pain. And the recent replication, as well as numerous previous ones, said the same. But then it struck me.
Replication of the experiment is not enough. What is needed is replication and then follow-up with the same subjects (although that would pose difficult research challenges). While many of the participants in their brief face off with authority and obedience may have appeared to be following orders blindly, their initial responses are not the litmus test. If it were true obedience, as in the Nazi Germany analogy, it should stand up in a repetition with the same subjects. In other words, after reflection would those who capitulated to “authority” do it again? I think it’s likely that many would not. Milgram noted that most of his subjects had high stress levels following the experiment.
In Nazi Germany obedience was not a one- shot deal of participating in cruelty for an hour, being debriefed and then going home to a normal life.
Simply replicating Milgram’s research design does not tell us if the obedience that was demonstrated is a fixed part of our makeup, even if dormant most of the time. On the other hand, all of us may not be monsters poised for the right circumstances to unleash the devil within. When conscience and consciousness kick in they might very well trump the “Eichmann effect.”
The implications of Milgram’s experiment are too far reaching to be left standing without more thorough investigation.
— — —
(My latest book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is published by Rowman and Littlefield (Oct. 2007) and is now available at Amazon.com,Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches “Spirituality and Psychology in Film” at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio (“The Longevity Report”), he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major newspapers and other publications. He is also the President of the Association for Spirituality and Psychotherapy and is the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. © Copyright 2008 by Bernard Starr