The Role of Milgram's Research on Social Psychologists' Understanding of Obedience - Literature review Example

The Role of Milgrams Research on Social Psychologists Understanding of Obedience Nearly fifty years ago, psychologist Stanley Milgram embarked on a series of experiments that yielded results becoming one of the cornerstones of social psychology. Milgram (1961) was able to demonstrate the nature of obedience, more specifically, how obedience is more hinged on situational variables rather than personal predispositions. As reiterated by Milgram (1974), “The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act” (p. 205). This statement become fuel to the controversy over personal dispositions and social factors, and in more fundamental way, over nature versus nurture. In this paper, I will be presenting a summary of different opinions on the Milgram experiment as gathered from various academic writers in scholarly journals. To date, the Milgram experiment continues to be influential in the study of social psychology, and it has various implications in the conduct of research, as well as the research directions that social psychologists have taken. In conclusion, I will be discussing how Milgram’s experiment influenced the understanding of obedience in psychology. I will be drawing primarily from the articles that will be highlighted in this paper. The Milgram Experiment: An Evaluation Blass (1991) outlines five distinctive features of Milgram’s experiment which has gained its significant place in social psychology, and its lasting contributions. First, is the significance of the results which was far from the predicted outcome when Milgram ran a separate experiment to get the prediction rates of Yale seniors and a group of psychiatrists. Second, is the fact that Milgram conducted a series of experiments on the topic designing a more comprehensive picture of the phenomenon. Third stems from the controversies that the research has initiated. “More than any other research in social psychology, the obedience experiments have been embroiled from the beginning in a number of controversies in which they have played a central and enriching role”(Blass, 1991, p. 398). Fourth, is the far-reaching impact of the obedience research in other fields of discipline such as education, political science, communication research and philosophy. Fifth is how the research has accounted for discrepancies between the situational and dispositional determinants of behaviour. Although debate is continuing, Milgram’s research has paved the way for inquiry into which accounts for specific behaviours, and to what extent is the behaviour accounted for. This final distinction is the primary argument in Blass’s (1991) paper where he discusses the extent to which Milgram’s experiment can account for the nature of obedience. Gathering different studies which gave support for either situational or dispositional effects on obedience, Blass (1991) concluded that taking instead of subscribing to either one, taking a more interactionist stance helps to explain the factors that are questionable from Milgram’s study, and the ones after. “Rather than in sheer number of studies promoted, interactionist perspectives have made a contribution by providing some integration of the literature through the suggestion of a number of moderator variables that, when applied to the obedience experiment, helped identify factors (most of them inherent in the features of the Milgram obedience paradigm) that make predicting obedience from situational or dispositional factors difficult” (Blass, 1991, p. 408). Nonetheless, Blass (1991) is of the opinion that Milgram’s research is ingenious and has lasting effects. Furthermore, it has explanatory value of situations and reactions of people that may be contrary to their beliefs and moral principles. Specficially, Blass (1991) highlights how Milgram’s research contributes to the understanding and awareness of the Holocaust. Understanding the Holocaust was in fact one of the reasons for Milgram’s undertaking of the obedience experiments. From this perspective, it raises awareness of significant events in the past, while generally asserting the role of social psychology in historical and moral dimensions of society. Blass (2009) in a more recent article has outlined the three primary reasons for Milgram’s undertaking of the obedience study. First, one might find remnants of Solomon Asch’s conformity study. This is not surprising since Milgram became Asch’s teaching assistant in his early years in Harvard. Second was his decision to pursue a career in social psychology. And third, which is perhaps the most significant, was Milgram’s particular interest on what happened during the Holocaust. “This interest in the Holocaust was rooted in a lifelong identification with the Jewish people” (Blass, 2009, p. 39). This last motivation has been particularly discussed by several authors, in agreement or otherwise. Milgram’s intentions of using the obedience study to probe into the Holocaust was demonstrated in ensuring that one of his early talks about the results took place in Yale to the Hillel Chapter. Mastroianni (2002) was one to re-examine the relationship between Milgram’s experiment and the Holocaust. He draws from currently published historical perspectives on the Holocaust that in effect questions the significance of Milgram’s obedience study. Goldhagen (1996), for one, points out that based on a historical analysis, “the existence of ‘eliminationist anti-Semitism’ in Germany during the Nazi era” (Goldhagen, 1996, p. 168) was a strong factor for the people’s likelihood to follow the orders of Adolf Hitler. Godlhagen (1996) emphasizes that episodes like the Holocaust cannot be simply explained by looking for explanations from within the person or the situation, the belief or ideology in that particular time must also be examined. In effect, he criticizes the narrow dichotomous attempt to explain what took place during the Holocaust. Another point of criticism stems from the ecological validity of Milgram’s study. Browning and Goldhagen (1996) argue that “situational factors” in Milgram’s study cannot be generalised directly to the factors during Holocaust. Although both acknowledge the significant of the study in respect to the Holocaust, they call better examination of historical data available in relation to the holocaust. Psychology tends to isolate the variables in an aim to create a cause and effect relationship. However, contemporary scholars believe that the dynamics of an historical phenomenon, like the holocaust, cannot be explained simplistically based on situation versus person. To further validate and understand what took shape during these events, systematic evaluation is necessary, especially for an event that is at present time still heavily debated. Apart from the results and conclusions drawn from Milgram’s obedience study, the research process itself has been under close scrutiny. There have been strong remarks about the ethics of Milgram’s experiment, specifically the possible psychological effects it brings to the participants. It was Diana Baumrind (1964) who was first to criticize Milgram’s experiment on three ethical grounds: “the psychological distress caused to the subjects, the use of deception, and the lack of informed consent” (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009, p. 15). Baumrind was concerned of long-term psychological effects on the subjects such as “loss of dignity, lowered self-esteem, and loss of trust in authority” (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009, p. 15). In response, Milgram conducted a post-study among the subjects revealing that 80% were positive about participating in the study, with 74% attesting that they had personal insights from the study. There is however, a contention in terms of cognitive dissonance that Milgram failed to explain. The popularity of Milgram’s obedience study stem from two major effects: the results of the study which revealed total obedience to authority, and the ethical considerations associated with the study. It is from these two effects that I will draw upon my conclusions on the relevance of the Milgram obedience experiment to social psychology, and the understanding of obedience. My discussion will start with the ethical implications of the study followed by the significance of the results. I will also partly discuss the impact of the study in the design and conduct of social psychology research, which is closely related to the ethical implications. Conclusions Much has been written about the impact of Milgram’s experiment in stronger guidelines for the protection of human subjects. However, Benjamin and Simpson (2009) were careful to note that most of these guidelines were strengthened due to medical research involving human subjects. Furthermore, psychology did not rise as a prominent science in the 1960’s when the new guidelines were published. Clearly, critics like Baumrind (1964) created logical arguments with regard to the ethics of the experiment. However, the ethics that serve to guide psychologists during that time may have allowed experiments, like that of Milgram, to be conducted. For him to be granted a substantial amount to conduct the study, the board as well have well-considered the nature of the research. To Milgram’s defence, he would not have reached the stature of psychologist without understanding the ethical implications of a research design. The research design, in fact, of Milgram has been applauded for experimental realism. Benjamin and Simpson (2009) explain “that a more reasoned balance needs to be struck between studies that contain higher versus lower experimental realism” (p. 17). This is indeed possible as exemplified by Burger’s (2009) replication of the Milgram experiment which highlighted protecting the welfare of the subjects. The strength of social psychology as a science is its ability to manipulate variables in a confounded setting that is able to produce results that can be applied to real life situations. Social psychologists are challenged to respond to this call, but many factors, including ethical guidelines are limiting the reach of the behaviours that can be studied. Milgram’s experiment serves as a model for creating a balance between objectivity and creativity to design a research study which reaches acceptable standards of validity. The imposing results of Milgram’s study have far-reaching influence in the shaping of personality and social psychology. Fundamentally, the study circles around the age-old debate of “nature versus nurture” or “person versus situation.” The study has shifted the focus from “internal explanations of behavior toward environmental and situational ones” (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009, p. 15). More recent studies have taken an interactionist stance, acknowledging the combination of both personality and situation as eliciting particular types of behaviours. This was indeed a significant milestone in merging the concepts of personality and social psychology. Obedience, particularly, has become a subject of closer investigation, and one that has achieved a seat in the interactionist perspective. The more direct results from Milgram’s experiment can be seen in social psychology. After Milgram’s experiment, other related studies such as Zimbardo’s were conducted to further examine the role of situational variables. However, why is the Milgram experiment considered a milestone in psychology? The obedience research answers not only a big question, but a moral one. From its conception, the pervading background of the holocaust has pushed Milgram to design the experiment. It has shaped how obedience, traditionally seen in a positive light, can be a tool for something destructive or “evil”. For social psychologists, the findings and debates has shifted the perception that obedience can be perceived only from the lenses of internal dispositions. Obedience becomes a comprehensive concept that takes into account various factors that is affecting an ordinary person’s life, more specifically, situations and ideologies. While obedience has been traditionally connected as a positive attribute [especially among children], Milgram’s research study has shown how it can potentially become a tool for destruction or “evil.” This revolutionary shift in perceptions is one of the factors that is giving the Milgram experiment a lasting impression. The role of social psychology applied to real life is significant. “To better understand how bad events can be translated into good or better outcomes, we occasionally need to study how individuals manage and cope with negative or adverse situations in well-controlled experiments” (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009, p. 18). The society as a whole can gain more from well-designed studies in the field of social psychology. The Milgram experiment cannot be devoid of imperfections and speculations. However, it remains to date one of the best examples of experimental realism. Moreover, it has demonstrated how sound research designs can yield valid and significant results. It has lived up to the expectations of psychology as a scientific discipline, and one that can positively contribute to society. References: Benjamin, L.T. & Simpson, J.A. (2009). The power of situation: The impact of Milgram’s obedience studies on personality and social psychology. American Psychologist, 64(1), 12-19. 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. Blass, T. (2009). From New Haven to Santa Clara: A historical perspective on the Milgram obedience experiments. American Psychologist, 64(1), 37-45. Burger, J.M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11. Mastroianni, G. (2002). Milgram and the Holocaust: A re-examination. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 22(2), 158-173. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper and Row. Read More