The Present and Future of Obedience to Unjust Authority

by Sharon Presley

The Milgram experiment, with its chilling results, occurred in the early '60's. Have things changed since the Milgram experiment? Are people less obedient to unjust authority? Many people imagine so. I have two words in answer to that question: Abu Ghraib. But perhaps, some might think to themselves: "That was a military situation where soldiers are told to obey authority. What does that tell us about real life?" "The Human Behavior Experiments," a program aired a number of years ago on TV, provides an answer (PSO, 2006). Besides discussing the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments, as well as the Latane and Darley studies on bystander apathy, the program details a number of notorious real-life cases and draws the connections to the psychology studies. Perhaps the most astonishing one was the case of the "Telephone Cop." A man, masquerading as a police officer, started calling fast food places around the country, telling the manager that one of the employees was a suspected drug dealer and asking the manager to hold the suspect for him. In the example used for the program, the innocent teenage girl employee was, over several hours, subjected to humiliating questions, a strip search and finally--sexual molestation by the manager's fiance! This, all at the behest of the alleged police officer on the phone. Hard to believe? Sorry but similar results at other fast food places happened more than once. The man on the phone sounded authoritative and had the mask of authority. They obeyed.

Lest readers still think such events are flukes, current psychology research evidence also supports the idea that people are still basically about as obedient to authority as they were in the 1960's. Never underestimate the capacity of individuals to compartmentalize their moral values from their everyday lives. A number of partial replications of the Milgram experiment have been conducted over the years. None are encouraging; almost all tend to support Milgram's basic conclusions, though with some inconsistencies. Several of the most important are described below.

Early Studies

Unlike most of the other studies, one experiment did find significantly lower rates of obedience (Kilham & Mann, 1971). In their study of Australian college students, Kilham and Mann focused on the Milgram experimental version in which participants who relayed information to another person who pulled the actual shock lever were highly obedient (92.5% or 37 of 40). In their Transmitter scenario, which was roughly comparable to Milgram's, only 54% (27 of 50) were fully obedient. In their Executant scenario, the participant pulled the shock lever but the order did not come directly from the Experimenter; it was relayed through another confederate "subject." In this version, the rate of maximum obedience dropped to 28% (14 of 50). Kilham and Mann speculated that because the transmitter "performed an important mediating role, instrumental to punishing the victim," it may help explain why fewer participants obeyed (p. 701). They also interpret the overall lower rates of obedience as a result of the sample ("hirsute" college students) and the "zeitgeist" of the times--campus unrest and anti-war activities were common on college campuses. In another departure from Milgram, Kilham and Mann also found significant gender differences; 68% of the men but only 40% of the women gave the maximum shock in the Transmitter version; only 40% of the men and 16% of the women obeyed in the Executant scenario. Because, across all conditions, men were paired with male learners and women with female learners, they suggest that this difference may be a result of women being more likely to form an alliance with the victim to oppose the unreasonable demands of the experimenter. They called for further exploration of the interaction of gender and role.

Two studies have followed up on Milgram's Experiment 13 in which another "participant" (actually a confederate) assumed the Experimenter's role. In this scenario, the rate of obedience went down to 20% (4 out of 20) (Milgram, 1974). Both studies found a much higher rate of obedience in their comparable conditions (Mantell, 1971; Rosenhan, as cited in Blass, 1991). Mantell, using a West German sample, found that 52% gave the maximum shock in this scenario, while 53% of Rosenhan's sample obeyed. In the baseline version, in which Milgram obtained an obedience rate of 65%, Mantell and Rosenhan both obtained 85%. Troubling findings, indeed.

The Dutch Study

In more recent times, Meeus and Raaijmakers (1995) conducted a study of what they called "administrative violence," as opposed to the physical violence (shock) used in the Milgram experiment, arguing that this method has more ecological validity in present times. Their study included an experimenter, the actual participant, and a confederate who was presented as being a job applicant. The participants were asked to disturb the applicant while he was taking a test as part of his application. They were told that if he failed the test that he would not get the job and would be unemployed. The experimenter instructed the participants to make 15 negative "stress" remarks about his performance and personality that would be detrimental to his performance. If the participants refused, they were given a series of four prods similar to those in the Milgram experiment. A control group was given instructions to make negative remarks to the applicant, but was not told that they had to make all 15 remarks.

The results were chilling: 91% of the experimental group obeyed to the end, making all 15 negative remarks. None of the control group made all of the remarks. Like Milgram (1974), the authors note that the participants did not like their task; many said they disliked making the remarks, thinking them "unfair." Also comparable to Milgram's results was the fact that the participants were more likely to attribute responsibility to the experimenter for what happened (46%) than themselves (34%). Once again the results were: Do what you are told and do not question why.

The Burger Study

Most recently, Burger (2009) did a partial replication of the Milgram experiment. To avoid ethical problems, he replicated the instructions only up to the point at which participants first heard the learner's verbal protests (150 volts). He also screened out those who had taken more than two psychology courses or who expressed familiarity with the Milgram study. The participants were paid $50 and were told they could withdraw at any time. Of the Milgram participants who went beyond the 150 volt point, 79% went clear to the end (450 volts) so Burger concluded that his results could be roughly compared to Milgram's.

The rate of obedience was only slightly lower than 45 years ago. Burger found that 30% stopped at or before 150 volts while 70% were willing to go on, as compared with the Milgram results in which 17.5% stopped at 150 volts and 82.5% went beyond this point. Like Milgram, Burger found no significant differences between men and women; 33.3% (6) of men and 27.3% (6) of women stopped while 66.7(12) of men and 72.7 (16) of women continued.

However, the real surprise for Burger was what he called the "Modeled Resistance" scenario. This was comparable to the condition in which two alleged peers of the teacher quit at an early point. In the original Milgram experiment, only 10% went to 450 volts; in Burger's replication, modeled resistance made little difference: 45% of the men(5) and 31% (6) of the women stopped at 150 volts, but 54.5% (6) of the men and 68.4%(13) were willing to go on. Like Mantell (1971) and Rosenhan (as cited in Blass, 1991), having an ally who resisted did not make much difference. This is one of the most chilling findings in the replications. Even having a resistant ally may not be enough to keep people from obeying destructive authority.

"People learning about Milgram's work often wonder whether the results would be any different today" writes Burger. "...Although changes in societal attitudes can affect behavior, my findings indicate that the same situational factors that affected obedience in Milgram's experiment still operate today." (Burger, 2009, p.9).

Conclusion

The power of authority to claim people's allegiance and obedience remains strong. Most people do what they are told by authority. Most people who imagine that they are exceptions are not likely to be. Until more people realize that they are not necessarily exceptions, that they too have the potential to go along with unjust authority (and may already be doing it); until large numbers of people are willing to be more critical of authority; to be willing to step back and see the moral forest, not just the immoral but demanding trees, we continue to run the risk that uncritical and destructive obedience to unjust authority can happen here and can happen now.

References

Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (3), 398-413.

Burger, J. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1-11.

Kilham, W., & Mann, L. (1974). Level of destructive obedience as a function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (5), 692-702.

Mantell, D. (1971). The potential for violence in Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 27, (4), 101-112.

Meeus, W.H.J., & Raaijmakers, Q.A.W. (1995). Obedience in modern society: The Utrecht studies. Journal of Social Issues, 51 (3), 155-175.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.

PSO (2006). The human behavior experiments. Court TV and Sundance Channels, June 1.

Copyright 2010 Sharon Presley