"The important task from the standpoint of a psychological study of obedience, is to be able to take conceptions of authority and translate them into personal experience. It is one thing to talk in abstract terms about the respective rights of the individual and of authority; it is quite another to examine a moral choice in a real situation. We all know about the philosophic problems of freedom and authority. But in every case where the problem is not merely academic there is a real person who must obey or disobey authority, a concrete instance when the act of defiance occurs. All musing prior to this moment is mere speculation ... the experiments are built around this notion." Stanley Milgram NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, 1963 IN THE EARLY 1960s THERE APPEARED IN A 41 LOCAL newspaper in New Haven, Connecticut, the following: Public Announcement WE WILL PAY YOU $4.00 FOR ONE HOUR OF YOUR TIME Persons Needed for a Study of Memory *We will pay five hundred New Haven men to help us complete a scientific study of memory and learning. The study is being done at Yale University. *Each person who participates will be paid $4.00 (plus 50c carfare) for approximately 1 hour's time. We need you for only one hour: there are no further obligations. You may choose the time you would like to come (evenings, weekdays, or weekends). *No special training, education, or experience is needed. We want: Factory workers Businessmen Construction workers City employees Oerks Salespeople White-collar workers Laborers Professional people Others Barbers Telephone workers All persons must be between the ages of 20 and 50. High school and college students cannot be used. *If you meet these qualifications, fill out the coupon below and mail it now to Professor Stanley Milgram, Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven. You will be notified later of the specific time and place of the study. We reserve the right to decline any application. *You will be paid $4.00 (plus 50c carfare) as soon as ·you arrive at the laboratory. ---------------------------TO: PROF. STANLEY MILGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, YALE UNIVERSITY, NEW HAVEN, CONN. I want to take part in this study of memory and learning. I am between the ages of 20 and SO. I will be paid $4.00 (plus SOc carfare) if I participate. NAME (Please Print) ..................................... . ADDRESS ............................................ . TELEPHONE NO ................ Best time to call you ...... . AGE ........ OCCUPATION .................... SEX ..... . CAN YOU COME: WEEKDAYS . . . . . . . EVENINGS ...... WEEKENDS ........ . 42 ARE WE ALL NAZIS? Let us assume we had answered it, just as hundreds of others did: men and women, young and old, those who had not finished high school and those who had doctoral and other degrees. This is what would have taken place next. 1 Two people come to a psychology laboratory to take part in a study of memory and learning. One of them is designated as ''teacher'' and the other as ''learner.'' The experimenter explains that the study is concerned with the effects of punishment on learning. The learner is conducted into a room, seated in a chair, his arms strapped to prevent excessive movement, and an electrode attached to his wrist. He is told that he is to learn a list of word pairs; whenever he makes an error, he will receive electric shocks of increasing intensity. The real focus of the experiment is the teacher. After watching the learner being strapped into place, he is taken into the main experimental room and seated before an impressive shock generator. Its main feature is a horizontal line of thirty switches, ranging from 15 volts to 450 volts, in 15-volt increments. There are also verbal designations which range from SLIGHT SHOCK to DANGER-SEVERE SHOCK. The teacher is told that he is to administer the learning test to the man in the other room. When the learner responds correctly, the teacher moves on to the next item; when the other man gives an incorrect answer, the teacher is to give him an electric shock. He is to start at the lowest shock level (15 volts) and to increase the level each time the man makes an error, going through 30 volts, 45 volts, and so on. The "teacher" is a genuinely naive subject who has come to the laboratory to participate in an experiment. The learner, or victim, is an actor who actually receives no shock at all. The point of the experiment is to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measurable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim. At what point will the subject refuse to obey the experiment? Conflict arises when the man receiving the shock begins to indicate that he is experiencing discomfort. At 75 volts, the "learner" grunts. At 120 volts he complains verbally; at 150 he demands to be released from the ex- NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, 1963 periment. His protests continue as the shocks escalate, growing increasingly vehement and emotional. At 285 volts his response can only be described as an agonized scream .... Experiment 2 (Voice-Feedback, just described) was identical to the first except that vocal protests were introduced. As in the first condition, the victim was placed in an adjacent room, but his complaints could be heard clearly through the walls of the laboratory. Experiment 3 (Proximity) was similar to the second, except that the victim was placed in the same room as the subject, a few feet from him. Thus he was visible as well as audible, and voice cues were provided. Experiment 4 (Touch-Proximity) was identical to the third with this exception: the victim received a shock only when his hand rested on a shock plate. At the 150volt level the victim demanded to be let free and refused to place his hand on the shock plate. The experimenter ordered the subject to force the victim's hand onto the plate. Thus obedience in this condition required that the subject have physical contact with the victim in order to give him punishment at or beyond the 150-volt level. Forty adult subjects were studied in each of these four conditions. Here is one example. Teacher: I think something's happened to that fellow in there. I don't get an answer. He was hollering at less voltage. Can't you check in and see if he's all right, please? Experimenter ( . . . detached calm): Not once we've started. Please continue, Teacher. Teacher (sits down and sighs deeply): "Cool-day, shade, water, paint." 2 Answer, please. Are you all right in there? Are you all right? Experimenter: Please continue, Teacher, continue, please. (Teacher pushes lever) Teacher (swiveling around in his chair): Something's happened to that man in there. (swiveling back) Next one. "Low-dollar, necklace, moon, paint." (turning around again) Something's happened to that man in 43 44 ARE WE ALL NAZIS? there. You better check in on him, sir. He won't answer or nothing. Experimenter: Continue. Go on, please. Teacher: You accept all responsibility? Experimenter: The responsibility is mine. Correct. Please go on. (Teacher returns to his list, starts running through words as rapidly as he can read them, works through to 450 volts.) Teacher: That's that. Here is another exchange. Experimenter: At what point were you most tense or nervous? Subject: Well, when he first began to cry out in pain, and I realized this was hurting him. This got worse when he just blocked and refused to answer. I'm a nice person, I think, hurting somebody, and caught up in what seemed a mad situation ... and in the interest of science one goes through with it .. . As Milgram observed, subjects frequently averted their eyes from the person they were shocking, often turning their head in an awkward and conspicuous manner. One subject explained, ''I didn't want to see the consequences of what I had done.'' The results of the above-mentioned four conditions of these so-called "memory" experiments are shown in Table 2-1. But before we look at them, we need to ask ourselves two questions. First, what would we predict these persons did? Second, what would we predict we would have done-or do? Let us take a moment to think about our answer. And then let us remember our guesses-for guesses are all they are; and in all probability they will be very similar to those others have made. What did others predict? Milgram asked psychiatrists, graduate students and faculty members in the behavioral sciences, college sophomores, and middle-class adults. There was a remarkable similarity among the predictions of these NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, 1%3 45 groups: subjects will soon refuse to obey the experimenter, and only a pathological fringe, not exceeding one or two percent, will proceed to the end of the shockboard. The psychiatrists, for example, predicted that most subjects would not go beyond the 10th shock level (150 volts, where the victim makes his first explicit demand to be freed); about 4 percent would reach the 20th shock level; and about one subject in a thousand would administer the highest shock on the board (450 volts). So much for their-and our-speculations. Now let us see what really happened. As can be seen from Table 2-1, no "teacher" stopped when the shock intensity was slight (15-60 volts). Only one administered moderate shocks (105 volts). 40 gave strong shocks (135-180 volts). And so forth to the 79 "teachers" (almost half of the 160 subjects) who administered the maximum shock possible. Note also that if "strong shock" (135 volts) was used as a criterion of obedience, all but 1 out of 160 persons (or more than 990J'o) complied. Milgram, like us, never expected such blind obedience. A reader's initial reaction to the experiment may be to wonder why anyone in his right mind would administer even the first shocks. Would he not simply refuse and walk out of the laboratory? But the fact is that no one ever does. Since the subject has come to the laboratory to aid the experimenter, he is quite willing to start off with the procedure. There is nothing very extraordinary in this, particularly since the person who is to receive the shocks seems initially cooperative, if somewhat apprehensive. What is surprising is how far ordinary individuals will go in complying with the experimenter's instructions. Indeed, the results of the experiment are both surprising and dismaying. Despite the fact that many subjects experience stress, despite the fact that many protest to the experimenter, a substantial proportion continue to the last shock on the generator. Many subjects will obey the experimenter no matter how vehement the pleading of the person being shocked, no matter how painful the shocks seem to be, and no matter how much the victim pleads to be let out. This was seen time and again in our studies .... It is the extreme will- 46 ARE WE ALL NAZIS? TABLE2-1 MAXIMUM SHOCKS ADMINISTERED • Experiment Experiment Experiment Experiment l Shock level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Verbal designation and voltage level Slight shock 15 30 45 (Remote) 2 3 4 (Voice- (Proximity) (TouchFeedback) Proximity) 60 Moderate Shock 75 90 105 120 Strong Shock 135 150 165 180 Very Strong Shock 195 210 225 240 Intense Shock 255 270 285 300 Extreme Intensity Shock 315 330 345 360 Danger: Severe Shock 375 390 405 420 1 5 1 1 5 10 1 16 2 3 5 4 2 I I 3 3 2 26 25 16 12 65.00Jo 62.5% 40.0% 30.0% xxx 29 435 30 450 Percent of totally obedient subjects * Adapted from Milgram. NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, 1963 ingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority that constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation .... What, then, keeps the person obeying the experimenter? First, there is a set of "binding factors" that lock the subject into the situation. They include such factors as politeness on his part, his desire to uphold his initial promise of aid to the experimenter, and the awkwardness of withdrawal. Second, a number of adjustments in the subject's thinking occur that undermine his resolve to break with the authority. The adjustments help the subject maintain his relationship with the experimenter, while at the same time reducing the strain brought about by the experimental conflict. They are typical of thinking that comes about in obedient persons when they are instructed by authority to act against helpless individuals. One such mechanism is the tendency of the individual to become so absorbed in the narrow technical aspects of the task that he loses sight of its broader consequences. The film Dr. Strangelove brilliantly satirized the absorption of a bomber crew in the exacting technical procedure of dropping nuclear weapons on a country. Similarly, in this experiment, subjects became immersed in the procedures, reading the word pairs with exquisite articulation and pressing the switches with great care. They want to put on a competent performance, but they show an accompanying narrowing of moral concern. The subject entrusts the broader tasks of setting goals and assessing morality to the experimental authority he is serving. . . . It is psychologically easy to ignore responsibility when one is only an intermediate link in a chain of evil action but is far from the final consequences of the action. Even Eichmann was sickened when he toured the concentration camps, but to participate in mass murder he had only to sit at a desk and shuffle papers. At the same time the man in the camp who actually dropped Cyclon-B into the gas chambers was able to justify his behavior on the ground that he was only following orders from above. Thus there is a fragmentation of the total human act; no one man decides to carry out the evil act and is confronted with 47 48 ARE WE ALL NAZIS? its consequences. The person who assumes full responsibility for the act has evaporated. Perhaps this is the most common characteristic of socially organized evil in modern society. It is at this point, I think, that you might want to say that you would never have done what these persons did. But you would be wrong, and now you know it, too; for the simple truth is that almost without exception we all would have done the very same, no matter how unbelievable that may seem to us. Just as the predictions of the psychiatrists- who claim to know such thingsturned out to have been mere speculation, so were our own. Such cold statistics are very difficult to argue with. Milgram wrote: I am forever astonished when lecturing on the obedience experiments in colleges across the country. I faced young men who were aghast at the behavior of experimental subjects and proclaimed they would never behave in such a way, but who in a matter of months, were brought into the military and performed without compunction actions that made shocking the victim seem pallid. In this respect, they are no better and no worse than human beings of any other era who lend themselves to the purposes of authority and become instruments in its destructive processes. Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist at Stanford University, wrote to the American Psychologist: We must first increase our sensitivity to, and our need for, more knowledge about those conditions in our everyday life where, despite our protests-"/ would never do what they did"-we would, and we do, behave contrary to our expectations. Second, we must critically re-examine the ethics and tactics of our revered social institutions, which lay the foundation for our mindless obedience to rules, to expectations, and to people playing at being authorities. The question to ask of Milgram's research is not [only] why did the majority of normal, average subjects behave in evil (felonious) ways, but what did the disobeying minority do after they refused to continue to shock the NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, 1963 49 poor soul, who was so obviously in pain? Did they intervene, go to his aid, denounce the researcher, protest to higher authorities, etc.? No, even their disobedience was within the framework of "acceptability"; they stayed in their seats, ''in their assigned place,'' politely, psychologically demurred, and they waited to be dismissed by the authority. Using other measures of obedience in addition to "going all the way" on the shock generator, obedience to authority in Milgram's research was total. Such an experimental result is more than merely "probably important" (as Steven Marcus' review in the New York Times, January 13, 1974, suggests). It ought to give each of us pause as no other single bit of research has. But it will not, because the vital lessons about human conduct are really not influenced by research psychologists, or heeded even when nicely expressed by English professors. The lessons reach the people through their momma and their poppa, the homeroom teacher, the police, the priests, the politicians, the Ann Landerses and Joyce Brotherses and all of the other "real" people of the world who set the rules and the consequences for breaking them. So where does this leave us? The facts have fallen into place, and the conclusions become inevitable. From our study of the Nazis we have found that they were essentially normal, ordinary men-as normal and ordinary as those good citizens who walked the streets in New Haven and answered Milgram's advertisement. And so we now know that those Nazis and these Americans,which is to say you and I-for all our superficial differences such as time and place, are, psychologically speaking, interchangeable. Which is food for thought. Milgram said: The question arises as to whether there is any connection between what we have studied in the laboratory and the forms of obedience we so deplored in the Nazi epoch. The differences in the two situations are, of course, enormous, yet the difference in scale, numbers, and political context may turn out to be relatively unimportant as long as certain essential features are retained. 50 ARE WE ALL NAZIS? The essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow. The adjustment of thought, the freedom to engage in cruel behavior, and the types of justification experienced by the person are essentially similar whether they occur in a psychological laboratory or the control room of an ICBM site. And we also know now what the late psychologist Gordon Allport meant when he called the Milgram experiments the "Eichmann experiment." For this is the conclusion: men and societies commit destructive acts, including murder, mass murder, and genocide, "normally," "legally," and in the final analysis without reason or even hate. And thus our old definitions of crime and insanity have become basically worthless. Such is the evidence. And we shall have to come to terms with it. ................................ 3. THE HOLY COWS, 1978
Purchase answer to see full attachment