My last column challenging the conclusion of Stanley Milgram’s research on obedience to authority—and the recent replication by Jerry Burger—has generated some astute comments. There is general agreement that more research is needed before Milgram’s findings can be considered a valid explanation for the human dynamics behind holocausts and other mass atrocities. In fact, Milgram believed that his "obedience factor" substantially accounted for these horrors, as suggested by the rhetorical question he posed in 1974: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders?”

That’s just too simplistic an explanation drawn from a brief laboratory experiment that does not mirror real life. After the release of Milgam’s eyebrow-raising findings in 1964, so much intense analysis and crtique focused on the ethics of exposing human subjects to emotionally painful experiences that the more fundamental question of the validity of the findings slipped through the cracks. Jerry Burger’s recent replication with his “140 volt solution” continues to speak primarily to the ethical issues.

A number of questions remain open: Is a confusing brief experiment demonstrating that behavior can be manipulated by the obedience factor, or any factor, sufficient for Milgram’s far reaching interpretation? After reflection on their laboratory behavior would most of the subjects again obey an ersatz authority and inflict pain on “learners” who they don’t know or have negative feelings toward? Until researchers can show that the behavior they observed in the laboratory is intrinsic to the “teachers,” and would be repeated by them under a wide variety of circumstances, we have to put Milgram’s conclusions on hold.

Here are three thoughtful responses to the last column:

Comment from Robert L. Bonn, PhD, Formerly Professor of Sociology and Chairman of the Department, John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York; and author of the textbook, “Criminology.”

“Looking at your article, 'Are We All Potential Monsters?' I very much agree that the recent replication of Milgram's experiments provides no real proof of his generalized assertions concerning authority. In thinking further about it, my sociological self kicked in and I would also raise questions about variance among subjects and, for that matter, among experimental contexts. People can probably be aligned on a continuum along which there are some who always accede to group or authority demands while there are others who virtually never do.

The variance in context is equally problematic: some people have the capacity to act morally in one situation but not in another. This was a recurrent problem in police brutality; the same officer who would not him or herself brutalize a suspect would stand idly by while the partner(s) did. I also knew at the college police officers (many of whom saw themselves as highly moral) who would turn down "dirty" assignments such as drugs or vice simply because the did not want to be exposed to all the opportunities for violence and corruption. I wonder how many declined to participate in the Milgram experiment or replication because they realized what they might be subject to! In any event, as you argue, Milgram had a point (which turned out to eminently quotable by so many others) but over generalized his findings.”

Comment from Harry R. Moody, PhD, Senior Associate,
International Longevity Center-USA and author of, The Five Stages of the Soul:

“During the Sixties, at Yale, I majored in experimental social psychology, working under Prof. Charles Kiesler, and we personally did many experiments in the 'Milgram' style, all involving deception and manipulation of human subjects I eventually abandoned this field, but not because of any ethical qualms. On the contrary, I don't believe I've ever seen any persuasive ethical argument against what Milgram, Zimbardo and others were doing. In fact, I regret that more of this work has not been done, evidently because of the squeamishness of IRB's (institutional review boards) and other false alarms. To put it in perspective, far more people are damaged, for life, every year by high school or college football games than have ever been hurt by any social psychology experiment I've ever heard about. I never saw any damage whatever in the countless subjects we worked with in the Sixties.

The Milgram 'Obedience' study suffers from the limitations of all experimental studies. We never can know how far findings "translate" outside the laboratory. The point about stress levels in subjects is not persuasive to me: people do all kinds of evil things while experiencing stress. But the point is, they do those things. And that's the problem. The 'laboratory' of world history seems to show, in devastating detail, how people become monsters, whether under stress or not. The French Revolution and its excesses are comparable to things that Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and others did. These are the empirical 'findings' from world history that need to be explained.

The Authoritarian Personality is a book that gives insights into these matters. The hopeful argument that people might not do bad things if they had to repeat their actions is just that: an admirable hope. But there's an awful lot of evidence to the contrary from history and everyday life. What Hannah Arendt famously called the 'banality of evil' cries out for understanding. Experimental social psychology, at its best, has given us some answers. We need to take the findings seriously, and your comments have admirably opened up this discussion again.”

Comment from Vitor Rodriguez ,PhD (Portugal), President of the European Transpersonal Association (EUROTAS):

“ I believe you are right about some flaws in the study from Milgram (worrying and disturbing as it still is) and with the replication. Also there are many avenues for further research. For instance, probably previous exposure to several different kinds of propaganda would change people’s reactions to “torture this person” commands (they could be exposed to a Gandhi documentary, a documentary about Bush and the need for power and authority, you name it ). Also different states of affairs in each participant’s lives would probably prompt different reactions. One can be in anger with life and the world after the sudden death of a close relative; one can be happy after a job promotion; also one can have the personality of a psychopath or one can be morally very highly developed according to Kohlberg’s criteria.

I agree that a follow-up would be a great idea because if one is given time to think and feel his actions and has the opportunity to change after seeing their meaning that may produce different results than momentary pressure from an “authority figure” in a lab. Also some people would always refuse to torture others and we can learn more from them. By the way, we have lots of minor occasions for behaving as little monsters in everyday life and sometimes we do obey them. For instance: we are in a group and others start gossiping about someone and saying awful things about that person; we feel the group pressure to be part of this minor “moral stoning” of the person. Are we going to be shy about this and say nothing about the possibility that they could be wrong? Are we going to face the group’s tendency and say that we know this person and perhaps she is not that bad? Are we going to declare that we don’t like gossiping? Minor occasions for “monster behaviour” can help us in our way to become capable of bigger monstrosities”
....................

Clearly, Milgram’s important and provocative research has given us more questions than answers. The frightening implications of his work with its dark view of human nature beg further study. Hopefully new research will go beyond simple replication to illuminate the unanswered questions.
— — —

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 (Monday –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.
— — —

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 2009 by Bernard Starr